[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44847-44858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20475]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0194]


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: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing 
this regular biweekly notice. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (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 29 to September 11, 2017. The last 
biweekly notice was published on September 12, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by October 26, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by November 27, 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-2017-0194. 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: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0194, 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-2017-0194.
     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,

[[Page 44848]]

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-2017-0194, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should 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. Should the 
Commission take 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. Should the Commission make 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

[[Page 44849]]

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 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

[[Page 44850]]

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.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: July 19, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17200D162.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
licensing basis, by the addition of a license condition, to allow the 
implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed 
categorization and treatment of structures, systems, and components 
[SSCs] for nuclear power reactors,'' for PVNGS. The provisions of 10 
CFR 50.69 allow adjustment of the scope of equipment subject to special 
treatment controls (e.g., quality assurance, testing, inspection, 
condition monitoring, assessment, and evaluation). For equipment 
determined to be of low safety significance, alternative treatment 
requirements can be implemented in accordance with this regulation. For 
equipment determined to be of high safety significance, requirements 
will not be changed or will be enhanced. This allows improved focus on 
equipment that has high safety significance resulting in improved plant 
safety.
    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 will 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 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(s). 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 will 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 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 the analyses of 
accidents are not affected by the proposed change. 10 CFR 50.69 
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 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198C829.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2 Conditions and Surveillance 
Requirements to reflect a proposed change to the design of the two 
redundant cross-tie lines that are part of the ultimate heat sink.
    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.
    Operability of the Fermi 2 UHS [ultimate heat sink] requires 
that the two reservoirs either be cross-tied or capable of being 
cross-

[[Page 44851]]

tied. Fermi 2 proposes a change to the design of the reservoirs to 
remove the cross-tie valves. With the four cross-tie valves removed, 
the reservoirs are permanently cross-tied and there is no credible 
failure mode to cause the reservoirs to not be cross-tied during an 
event. A structural crack in one reservoir would result in both 
reservoirs being affected when they are permanently cross-connected. 
However, the consequences are bounded by the UFSAR [updated final 
safety analysis report] which already includes allowance for a 
structural crack in both reservoirs.
    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.
    Operability of the Fermi 2 UHS requires that the two reservoirs 
either be cross-tied or capable of being cross-tied. As these valves 
are currently maintained normally open and deenergized, the safety 
limits and safety analysis assumptions associated with the design 
and operation of the plant will not change. Structural cracks 
affecting both reservoirs have already been considered as described 
above. Accordingly, the change to remove the cross-tie valves does 
not introduce any new accident initiators, nor does it reduce or 
adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure, system, or 
component to perform their safety function.
    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 have no adverse effect on plant operation. 
The plant response to the design basis accidents does not change, 
with the exception that actions to cross-connect the reservoirs are 
no longer necessary. 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.
    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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 14, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17226A277.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Fermi 2 Technical Specification 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter 
Testing Program (VFTP)'' by adopting the formatting and language of the 
Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 5.5.8.
    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 aligns the introductory paragraph and 
testing requirements of Specification 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter 
Testing Program (VFTP),'' to be consistent with the STS. The Fermi 2 
VFTP will implement the required testing of ESF [Emergency Safety 
Features] filter ventilation systems at the frequencies specified in 
Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2, and in accordance with Regulatory 
Guide 1.52, Revision 2 and ASME [American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers] N510-1980.
    Specific frequency requirements to perform testing are retained 
either as a reference to Regulatory Guide requirements and general 
requirements in Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.1 or in the 
licensee-controlled VFTP. Implementation of these requirements will 
be in the licensee-controlled VFTP. The VFTP will be maintained in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
    Since SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] and CREF [Control Room 
Emergency Filtration] are ESF systems and not accident initiators, 
the probability of an accident evaluated in the UFSAR [updated final 
safety analysis report] will not be increased. As such, the 
probability of occurrence for a previously analyzed accident is not 
significantly increased.
    The consequences of a previously analyzed event are dependent on 
the initial conditions assumed for the analysis and the availability 
and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in 
response to the analyzed event. The proposed change does not affect 
the performance of any credited equipment, and the details of 
testing do not alter the assumptions made in the safety analysis. As 
such, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    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 does not involve a physical alteration to 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed 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 change revises TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter 
Testing Program (VFTP),'' to be consistent with the STS. The 
proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no 
effect on any safety analysis assumption. In addition, no regulatory 
requirements are being removed, but are either being replaced with 
references to be performed as described in Regulatory Guide 1.52, 
Revision 2, and the requirements of SR 3.0.1 or are being held in 
the licensee-controlled VFTP. Therefore, this proposed change does 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, DTE concludes that the proposed amendment 
does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the 
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding 
of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.

    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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 5, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17156A216.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) established for the 
Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs). The proposed changes will restrict 
the steady-state voltage and frequency limits for EDG operation to 
ensure that accident mitigation equipment can perform as designed. The 
proposed changes would also increase the voltage limit for the EDG full 
load rejection test.

[[Page 44852]]

    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?
    The LAR [license amendment request] proposes to provide voltage 
and frequency limits that are more restrictive for the steady-state 
operation of the EDGs than the current TS limits and proposes a 
change in the voltage limit following a load rejection. The current 
steady-state voltage limit is plus or minus 10% of the nominal EDG 
voltage (6900  690 volts) and the current steady-state 
frequency limit is plus or minus 2% of the nominal frequency (60 
 1.2 hertz). The proposed voltage limit is plus or minus 
4% of the nominal EDG voltage (6900  276 volts) and the 
proposed frequency limit is plus or minus 0.8% of the nominal 
frequency (60  0.48 hertz). The voltage limit following 
a load rejection is being changed from 110% of the EDG voltage at 
the start of the test to 8,280 volts at any time during the test, 
which is 120% of the EDG nominal voltage rating.
    More restrictive voltage and frequency limits for the output of 
the EDG restores design margin and provides assurance that the 
equipment supplied by the EDG will operate correctly and within the 
assumed timeframe to perform their mitigating functions. Testing 
results have been reviewed to verify that the proposed voltage and 
frequency limits are reasonable for the performance characteristics 
of the EDGs.
    The technical analysis performed to support the change in the 
voltage limit following a load rejection has demonstrated that the 
EDGs can withstand voltages at the new proposed maximum voltage 
limit without a loss of protection. The proposed higher limit will 
continue to provide assurance that the EDGs are protected, and the 
safety function of the EDGs will be unaffected by the proposed 
change.
    The EDGs are safety-related components that function to mitigate 
the impact of an accident with a concurrent loss of offsite power. A 
loss of offsite power is typically a significant contributor to 
postulated plant risk and, as such, onsite alternating current (AC) 
EDGs have to be maintained available and reliable in the event of a 
loss of offsite power event. The EDGs are not initiators for any 
analyzed accident; therefore, the probability for an accident that 
was previously evaluated is not increased by the proposed changes. 
The proposed voltage and frequency limits will ensure the EDGs will 
remain capable of performing their design function.
    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?
    The LAR proposes to provide voltage and frequency limits that 
are more restrictive for the steady-state operation of the EDGs than 
the current TS limits and proposes a change in the voltage limit 
following a load rejection.
    The voltage and frequency limits were established for the 
steady-state operation voltage and frequency limits, using verified 
design calculations and the guidance of NRC Administrative Letter 
98-10 (Nuclear Document System (NUDOCS) [ADAMS Legacy Library] 
Accession Number 9812280273). These limits will ensure the EDGs will 
perform as designed. No new configuration is established by this 
change.
    The proposed higher limit for the EDG voltage limit following a 
load rejection will continue to provide assurance that the EDGs are 
protected, and the safety function of the EDGs will be unaffected by 
the proposed change. The proposed increase in the TS SR limit does 
not affect the interaction of the EDGs with any system whose failure 
or malfunction can initiate an accident.
    The change does not involve a physical modification of the 
plant. There are no alterations to the parameters within which the 
plant is normally operated. No changes are being proposed to the 
procedures relied upon to mitigate a design basis event. The change 
does not have a detrimental impact on the manner in which plant 
equipment operates or responds to an actuation signal.
    Therefore, no new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated can be created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    The LAR proposes to provide voltage and frequency limits that 
are more restrictive for the steady-state operation of the EDGs than 
the current TS limits and proposes a change in the voltage limit 
following a load rejection. The proposed TS limits on voltage and 
frequency will ensure that the EDG will be able to perform all 
design functions assumed in the accident analyses. The change in the 
acceptance criteria for specific surveillance testing provides 
assurance that the EDGs will be capable of performing their design 
function. Previous test history has shown that the proposed limits 
are well within the capability of the EDGs.
    There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to 
assure the accomplishment of protection functions associated with 
reactor operation or the reactor coolant system. There will be no 
impact on safety limits and the associated margin of safety.
    The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillance or alter 
the frequency of surveillance required by HNP TS. The more 
restrictive EDG voltage and frequency limits for steady-state 
operation and the increase in the TS SR voltage limit for the EDGs 
following a load rejection will not affect the ability of the EDGs 
to perform their safety function.
    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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: July 13, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198A020.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete the cyber security plan license condition for the Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Station (VY).
    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.
    Spent fuel at VY is stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) and in 
the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). In this 
configuration, the spectrum of possible accidents transients and 
accidents is significantly reduced compared to an operating nuclear 
power reactor. The design basis accident evaluated in Section 6 of 
the VY Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) is the fuel handling 
accident (FHA), which is predicated on spent fuel being stored in 
the SFP. Due to fuel decay since permanent cessation of reactor 
operations, the risk of an offsite radiological release is also 
significantly lower.
    This proposed change does not alter the FHA analysis 
assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or affect the 
function of facility structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 
relied upon to prevent or mitigate any previously evaluated accident 
or the manner in which these SSCs are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not involve 
any facility modifications which affect the performance capability 
of any SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate the consequences of 
any previously evaluated accidents.
    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?

[[Page 44853]]

    Response: No.
    This proposed change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or affect the 
function of facility SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate any 
previously evaluated accident, or the manner in which these SSCs are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not involve any facility modifications which affect the 
performance capability of any SSCs relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of previously evaluated accidents and does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    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.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified In the Technical Specifications, and as described in the 
Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR). The proposed change does not 
involve any changes to the initial conditions that establish safety 
margins, and does not involve modifications to any SSCs which are 
relied upon to provide a margin of safety. Because there is no 
change to established safety margins as a result of this proposed 
change, no significant reduction in a margin of safety is involved.
    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: Ms. Susan Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Ave. NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, 
DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: July 20, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17206A200.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Operating License and the Permanently Defueled Technical 
Specifications (PDTS) to reflect removal of all spent nuclear fuel from 
the spent fuel pool (SFP) and its transfer to dry cask storage within 
an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would modify the VY Renewed Facility 
Operating License (Operating License) and Permanently Defueled 
Technical Specifications (PDTS), or Technical Specifications (TS), 
by deleting the portions of the Operating License and PDTS that are 
no longer applicable to a facility with no spent nuclear fuel stored 
in the SFP, while modifying the remaining portions to correspond to 
all nuclear fuel stored within an ISFSI. This amendment will be 
implemented within 60 days following ENO's notification to the NRC 
that all spent fuel assemblies have been transferred out of the SFP 
and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI.
    The definition of safety-related structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) in 10 CFR 50.2 states that safety-related SSCs are 
those relied on to remain functional during and following design 
basis events to assure:
    (1) The integrity of the reactor coolant boundary;
    (2) The capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a 
safe shutdown condition; or
    (3) The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of 
accidents which could result in potential offsite exposures 
comparable to the applicable guideline exposures set forth in 10 CFR 
50.34(a)(1) or 100.11.
    The first two criteria (integrity of the reactor coolant 
pressure boundary and safe shutdown of the reactor) are not 
applicable to a plant in a permanently defueled condition. The third 
criterion is related to preventing or mitigating the consequences of 
accidents that could result in potential offsite exposures exceeding 
limits. However, after all nuclear spent fuel assemblies have been 
transferred to dry cask storage within an ISFSI, none of the SSCs at 
VY are required to be relied on for accident mitigation. Therefore, 
none of the SSCs at VY meet the definition of a safety-related SSC 
stated in 10 CFR 50.2. The proposed deletion of requirements in the 
PDTS does not affect systems credited in any accident analysis at 
VY.
    Section 6 of the VY Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) 
described the design basis accidents (DBAs) related to the SFP. 
These postulated accidents are predicated on spent fuel being stored 
in the SFP. With the removal of the spent fuel from the SFP, there 
are no remaining spent fuel assemblies to be monitored and there are 
no credible accidents that require the actions of a Certified Fuel 
Handler, Shift Manager, or a Non-certified Operator to prevent 
occurrence or mitigate the consequences of an accident.
    The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the 
remaining decommissioning activities or any of their postulated 
consequences. The proposed changes related to the relocation of 
certain administrative requirements do not affect operating 
procedures or administrative controls that have the function of 
preventing or mitigating any accidents applicable to the safe 
management of irradiated fuel or decommissioning of the facility.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 changes eliminate the operational requirements and 
certain design requirements associated with the storage of the spent 
fuel in the SFP, and relocate certain administrative controls to the 
Quality Assurance Program Manual or other licensee-controlled 
process.
    After the removal of the spent fuel from the SFP and transfer to 
the ISFSI, there are no spent fuel assemblies that remain in the 
SFP. Coupled with a prohibition against storage of fuel in the SFP, 
the potential for fuel related accidents is removed. The proposed 
changes do not introduce any new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 removal of all spent nuclear fuel from the SFP into storage 
in casks within an ISFSI, coupled with a prohibition against future 
storage of fuel within the SFP, removes the potential for fuel 
related accidents.
    The design basis and accident assumptions within the VY DSAR and 
the PDTS relating to safe management and safety of spent fuel in the 
SFP are no longer applicable. The proposed changes do not affect 
remaining plant operations, systems, or components supporting 
decommissioning activities.
    The requirements for systems, structures, and components (SSCs) 
that have been removed from the VY PDTS are not credited in the 
existing accident analysis for any applicable postulated accident; 
and as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated 
with the accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Susan Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East, 
Washington, DC 20001.

[[Page 44854]]

    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick 
Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: July 31, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17213A049.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
description for the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) 
requalification training frequency in the Emergency Plan from annually 
to ``once per calendar year not to exceed 18 months between training 
sessions.''
    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 only affects the administrative aspects of 
the annual ERO requalification training frequency requirements and 
not the content of the training. The proposed change does not 
involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect plan 
operation. The proposed change will have no impact on any safety-
related Structures, Systems, or Components (SSC).
    The proposed change would revise the ERO requalification 
frequency from an annual basis to once per calendar year not to 
exceed 18 months between training sessions as defined in the 
FitzPatrick Emergency Plan. The proposed change will support 
aligning the FitzPatrick training with the rest of the Exelon fleet 
under one standard regarding the annual requalification training 
frequency of personnel assigned Exelon ERO positions.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan 
requalification training frequency for the affected site 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 has no impact on the design, function, or 
operation of any plant SSC. The proposed change does not affect 
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed change only 
affects the administrative aspects related to the annual ERO 
requalification training frequency requirements. There are no 
changes in the content of the training being proposed under this 
submittal. The proposed change will support aligning the FitzPatrick 
training with the rest of the Exelon fleet under one standard 
regarding the annual requalification training frequency of personnel 
assigned Exelon ERO positions.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan 
requalification training frequency for the affected site 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 change only affects the administrative aspects of 
the annual ERO requalification training frequency requirements and 
does not change the training content. The proposed change does 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 change. Margins of safety are 
unaffected by the proposed change to the frequency in the ERO 
requalification training requirements.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan 
requalification training frequency for the affected site 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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305, 
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 28, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17179A161.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
licensing basis by adding a license condition to allow for the 
implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.69.
    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 will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs [structures, 
systems, and components] subject to NRC special treatment 
requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the 
regulations. 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 will 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 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.

[[Page 44855]]

    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: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 4, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17216A236.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments 
would modify the non-destructive examination (NDE) inspection interval 
for Special Lifting Devices from annually or prior to each use, 
typically at each refueling outage, to a 10-year interval.
    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 does not impact the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated as it only modifies an already 
existing NDE inspection interval and does not change the manner in 
which heavy loads are handled using these devices.
    The proposed change also does not significantly increase the 
probability of a previously evaluated accident as significant 
structural margins and high strength materials were used in excess 
of those specified in ANSI [American National Standards Institute] 
N14.6-1978. Additionally, the use of each device is infrequent and 
concerns of degradation due to fatigue are negligible, especially 
when compared to what is possible for the type of devices for which 
ANSI N14.6-1978 and its corresponding NDE inspection interval were 
originally intended. Continued visual inspections and dimensional 
testing consistent with ANSI N14.6-1978 on a periodicity of annually 
or prior to each use, typically at each outage, will continue to 
provide a high degree of probability that any flaws will be detected 
and addressed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change impacts the frequency of NDE inspections on 
the Special Lifting Devices. The proposed change, by its nature, 
does not alter the manner in which the devices are used and does not 
involve a physical change to the devices. It also does not change 
the manner in which heavy loads are handled using these devices.
    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 does not impact the designs or usage of the 
devices in any manner and, therefore, has no impact on the margins 
of safety for those designs. It modifies the frequency at which NDE 
inspections on major load carrying welds and other critical members 
are performed. However, given the evaluation of available past NDE 
inspection results, use of sufficient design margins and high 
strength materials, infrequent use and continued visual inspection 
and dimensional testing consistent with ANSI N14.6-1978, the 
proposed change will not result in any appreciable reduction in the 
reliability of the Special Lifting Devices load handling 
capabilities when contrasted with the frequency stipulated by ANSI 
N14.6-1978.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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 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: September 28, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 25, 2017, and May 24, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
Technical Specification-required action end states consistent with the 
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
423-A, Revision 1, ``Technical Specifications End States, NEDC 32988-
A,'' dated December 22, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093570241), as 
described in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal 
Register on February 18, 2011 (76 FR 9614). Changes to the Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications for 
selected required action end states allow entry into hot shutdown 
rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment if risk is assessed and 
managed consistent with the program in place for complying with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4).
    Date of issuance: August 29, 2017.

[[Page 44856]]

    Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 280 (Unit 1) and 308 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17180A596; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 
87968). The supplemental letters dated March 25 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 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 29, 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: October 27, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs) Sections 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' and 
3.0, ``Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) Applicability'' and 
``Surveillance Requirement (SR) Applicability.'' The changes clarify 
and expand the use and application of the plant's TS usage rules. The 
changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and 
Application Rules'' dated February 29, 2016.
    Date of issuance: September 6, 2017.
    Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit 1) and 309 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17186A219; 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: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 
13665).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 22, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 10, 2016, and March 22, 2017. Publicly-available 
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16266A086, ML16315A112, 
and ML17081A303, respectively.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 
3.3.8, ``Control Room Recirculation Signal (CRRS),'' and TS 3.7.8, 
``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS),'' to remove 
certain CREVS components and their associated testing, which no longer 
serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the control room 
boundary.
    Date of issuance: August 30, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 321 (Unit 1) and 299 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17209A620; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR 
8870). The supplemental letter dated March 22, 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 30, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 21, 2016, and April 24, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
allowable value for detecting a loss of voltage on the 4160 volt 
essential service system buses.
    Date of issuance: September 11, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to entering Mode 4 following the spring 2018 refueling outage for 
Unit 2, and prior to entering Mode 4 following the spring 2019 
refueling outage for Unit 1.
    Amendment Nos.: 268 (Unit 1) and 263 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17208A297; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications and Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 20, 2016 (81 
FR 92867). The supplemental letters dated November 21, 2016, and April 
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 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 September 11, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249,

[[Page 44857]]

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and No. 50-353, 
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania

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

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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise and clarify 
the technical specification usage rules for completion times, limiting 
conditions for operation, and surveillance requirements.
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 194/194; 200/200; 322/300; 213; 255/248; 224/210; 
226/189; 229/163; 314/318; 267/262; 126; and 292. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17163A355. 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, NPF-66, 
DPR-53, DPR-69, NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, NPF-39, NPF-85, 
DPR-63, NPF-69, DPR-44, DPR-56, DPR-29, DPR-30, DPR-18, and DPR-50: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 9, 2017 (82 FR 
21558).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated August 31, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: August 11, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 27, 2015; March 16, April 4, June 17, August 12, 
September 20, and November 16, 2016; and February 6, April 4, and May 
11, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to direct current 
(DC) electrical systems in TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' LCO 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--Shutdown,'' 
and LCO 3.8.6, ``Battery Cell Parameters.'' The amendments also added a 
new requirement, TS 5.5.15, ``Battery Monitoring and Maintenance 
Program,'' to TS 5.5, ``Administrative Controls--Programs and 
Manuals.''
    Date of issuance: August 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit 1) and 232 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17208A231; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36623). The supplemental letters dated June 17, August 12, September 
20, and November 16, 2016; and February 6, April 4, and May 11, 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 29, 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 amendment request: November 15, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 13, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the TS 
requirements to operate ventilation systems with charcoal filters from 
10 hours to 15 minutes each month in accordance with TSTF-522, Revision 
0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 
10 hours per Month.''
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 189 and 172. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17186A276; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82 
FR 12135).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 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 amendment request: November 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications by relocating references to specific American 
Society for Testing and Materials standards for fuel oil testing to 
licensee-controlled documents and adding alternate criteria to the 
``clear and bright'' acceptance test for new fuel oil. The change is in 
accordance with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 374, 
Revision 0, ``Revision to TS 5.5.13 and Associated TS Bases for Diesel 
Fuel Oil.''
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within [licensee requested number] days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 190 and 173. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17208B018;

[[Page 44858]]

documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82 
FR 12136).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 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 amendment request: November 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments add technical 
specifications requirements for unavailable barriers by adding Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.10 as described as LCO 3.0.9 in TSTF-
427, Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non Technical Specification Barrier 
Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITY.''
    Date of issuance: September 5, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 191 and 174. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198B633; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82 
FR 12137).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 5, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of September 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-20475 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P