Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 8865-8877 [2017-02034]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES which the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe wishes the Commission to give particular attention as part of the uncontested hearing process. Such statement may be accompanied by any supporting documentation that the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe sees fit to provide. Any statements and supporting documentation (if any) received by the Commission using the agency’s E-filing system 1 by the deadline indicated above will be made part of the record of the proceeding. The Commission will use such statements and documents as appropriate to inform its pre-hearing questions to the NRC staff and applicant, its inquiries at the oral hearing and its decision following the hearing. The Commission may also request, prior to March 9, 2017, that one or more particular States, local government bodies, or Indian Tribes send one representative each to the evidentiary hearing to answer Commission questions and/or make a statement for the purpose of assisting the Commission’s exploration of one or more of the issues raised by the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe in the pre-hearing filings described above. The decision of whether to request the presence of a representative of a State, local government body, or Indian Tribe at the evidentiary hearing to make a statement and/or answer Commission questions is solely at the Commission’s discretion. The Commission’s request will specify the issue or issues that the representative should be prepared to address. States, local governments, or Indian Tribes should be aware that this evidentiary hearing is separate and distinct from the NRC’s contested hearing process. Issues within the scope of contentions that have been admitted or contested issues pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board or the Commission in a contested proceeding for a COL application are outside the scope of the uncontested proceeding for that COL application. In addition, although States, local governments, or Indian Tribes participating as described above may take any position they wish, or no position at all, with respect to issues 1 The process for accessing and using the agency’s E-filing system is described in the March 10, 2008, notice of hearing that was issued by the Commission for this proceeding. See Dominion Virginia Power; Notice of Hearing and Opportunity To Petition for Leave To Intervene on a Combined License for North Anna Unit 3 (73 FR 12760). Participants who are unable to use the electronic information exchange (EIE), or who will have difficulty complying with EIE requirements in the time frame provided for submission of written statements, may provide their statements by electronic mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 regarding the COL application or the NRC staff’s associated environmental review that do fall within the scope of the uncontested proceeding (i.e., issues that are not within the scope of admitted contentions or pending contested issues), they should be aware that many of the procedures and rights applicable to the NRC’s contested hearing process due to the inherently adversarial nature of such proceedings are not available with respect to this uncontested hearing. Participation in the NRC’s contested hearing process is governed by 10 CFR 2.309 (for persons or entities, including States, local governments, or Indian Tribes, seeking to file contentions of their own) and 10 CFR 2.315(c) (for interested States, local governments, and Indian Tribes seeking to participate with respect to contentions filed by others). Participation in this uncontested hearing does not affect the right of a State, local government, or Indian Tribe to participate in the separate contested hearing process. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January, 2017. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–02017 Filed 1–30–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2017–0009] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. AGENCY: 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. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8865 This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from December 31, 2016, to January 17, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on January 17, 2017. DATES: Comments must be filed by March 2, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by April 3, 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–2017–0009. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 0009, 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 publiclyavailable 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–2017–0009. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable 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 E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 8866 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2017– 0009, 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 § 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 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 60day 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/doccollections/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 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party’s admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC’s regulations, policies, and procedures. Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this document. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by April 3, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federallyrecognized 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, Federallyrecognized 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 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 EFiling 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/sitehelp/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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8867 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling 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/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 8868 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices 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. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request: March 31, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16091A318. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Physical Protection license condition for the facility operating license to reflect a change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation schedule. Specifically, the completion date for Milestone 8 is proposed to be changed from December 31, 2017, to December 31, 2018. 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: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed one year extension to the Cyber Security Plan implementation schedule for Milestone 8 does not alter the Fuel Handling Accident analysis, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation schedule for Milestone 8 does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 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 amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation and safety analysis described in the FSAR [final safety analysis report]. The proposed change revises the Cyber Security Plan implementation schedule. The proposed Cyber Milestone 8 schedule change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed change does not involve changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences, or reduce response or mitigation capabilities. Because there is no change to these established safety margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of § 50.92(c) are satisfied. PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson. CHP. Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request: December 9, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16348A187. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Physical Protection license condition for the facility operating license by removing the existing cyber security license condition from the facility operating license. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed removal of the Cyber Security Plan does not alter the Fuel Handling Accident analysis, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed removal of the Cyber Security Plan does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications that affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices 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. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation and safety analysis described in the FSAR [final safety analysis report]. The proposed removal of the Cyber Security Plan does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed change does not involve changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences, or reduce response or mitigation capabilities. Because there is no change to these established safety margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of § 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 S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson, CHP. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: December 8, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A947. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule as previously approved. 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 to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 1. 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 CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 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. 2. 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. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick. PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8869 Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated December 2, 2016. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16302A227 and ML16340A018, respectively. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the ANO– 2 Renewed Facility Operating License NPF–6 specific to license conditions and requirements related to the adoption of National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805), based on updated information associated with the modifications that were described and committed to in the ANO–2 license amendment request that was previously approved by the NRC to adopt a new risk-informed, performance-based fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c). The amendment would also provide updated information related to ignition frequencies, recovery actions, use of an NRC-approved fire modeling tool not previously recognized as being used by ANO, and dual unit control room abandonment. 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 purpose of this amendment is to provide updated information associated with the modifications that were described and committed to the ANO–2 license amendment request that was submitted and subsequently approved by the NRC to adopt a new riskinformed, performance-based fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The amendment also provides updated information related to ignition frequencies, recovery actions, use of an NRC-approved fire modeling tool not previously recognized as being used by ANO, and dual unit control room abandonment. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Operation of ANO–2 in accordance with the proposed amendment does not result in a significant increase in the probability or E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 8870 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or precursors as described in the ANO–2 Safety Analysis Report (SAR), nor does it adversely alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility, and it does not adversely impact the ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of accidents described and evaluated in the SAR. The proposed amendment does not adversely alter safetyrelated systems nor affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their functions as required by the accident analysis. The SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of performing the associated design functions. Therefore, 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. Implementation of the new risk-informed, performance-based fire protection licensing basis, with the revised modifications, recovery actions, application of an NRCapproved fire modeling method for ANO, and ignition frequencies, along with the demonstration of the risk impact of dual unit abandonment, complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as the guidance contained in RG 1.205, and will not result in new or different kinds of accidents. The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection. The impacts of fire effects on the plant have been evaluated. The proposed amendment does not involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that could initiate a new or different kind of accident beyond those already analyzed in the SAR. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment has been evaluated to ensure that risk and safety margins are maintained within acceptable limits. The risk evaluations for plant changes in relation to the potential for reducing a safety margin, were measured quantitatively for acceptability using the delta risk (i.e., change in core damage frequency and change in large early release frequency) criteria from Section 5.3.5, ‘‘Acceptance Criteria,’’ of NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04–02, ‘‘Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-based Fire Protection Program under 10 CFR 50.48(c),’’ as well as the guidance contained in RG 1.205. Engineering analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based methods of NFPA–805 do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 Therefore, 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: William Glew, Associate General Counsel—Nuclear Legal, Nuclear and Environmental Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. 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 letter dated November 10, 2016. Publicly available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16266A086 and ML16315A112, respectively. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 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 CREV system components and their associated testing, which no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the control room boundary. 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 any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment eliminates certain CREV system components from the Technical Specifications that no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the Control Room (CR) boundary. The testing related to those components would be eliminated as well. The CREV system and its components are not an accident initiator. The CREV system and its components required to be operable and capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis continue to be operated and tested in accordance with the applicable TS requirements. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 probability or consequences of [any] accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment eliminates certain CREV system components that no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the Control Room boundary. The proposed amendment does not impose any new or different requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. 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 amendment eliminates certain CREV system components that no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the CR boundary. The testing related to those components would be eliminated as well. The proposed amendment does not affect the design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC). The elimination of components that no longer serve the original purpose of establishing the CR envelope and isolating the control room from the outside atmosphere by placing the CREV system in full recirculation mode improves the overall mitigating capabilities of the system by eliminating the consequences of any potential failure of a component to realign. The CREV system will continue to meet all of its requirements as described in the plant licensing basis (including the Final Safety Analysis Report and TS Bases). Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick. E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50–353, Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: December 20, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16355A263. Description of amendment request: The amendment would allow the use of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ for partial length rods that are currently in the Limerick Generating Station (LGS) Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor core for the remainder of the current operating cycle. These partial length rods are expected to exceed 62,000 megawatt days per metric ton of uranium (MWD/ MTU), which is the current rod average burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183, prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the change will revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. 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 would allow the use of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to the plant design and is not an initiator of an accident. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and does not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is operated or maintained. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the probability of a loss-of-coolant accident. In addition, the proposed change does not affect the probability of a fuel handling accident or control rod drop accident because the method and frequency of initiating activities are not changing. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power and burnup for a partial length rod is within 2.4% of the power and burnup in the same axial portion of neighboring full length rods, which is minor. Therefore, since the power and burnup of the full length rods comply with the limits specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, the partial length rods may operate beyond the 62,000 MWD/MTU burnup limit and meet the intent of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183. There are no changes in the dose consequences of the analyses of record for the fuel handling accident, control rod drop accident, and lossof-coolant accident. 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 would allow the use of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed change does not install any new or different type of equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced. 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 would allow the use of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power and burnup for a partial length rod is within 2.4% of the power and burnup in the same axial portion of neighboring full length rods, which is minor. There is no change in the dose consequences of the fuel handling accident, control rod drop accident, or loss- PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8871 of-coolant accident analyses of record. The margin of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, has been maintained. 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 Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego, New York Date of amendment request: January 3, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17003A065. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the NMP1 licensing basis related to alternate source term analysis in the updated final safety analysis report to allow the use of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ July 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792), for partial length fuel rods (PLRs) that are operating above the peak burnup limit for the remainder of the current operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the NMP1 licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing PLRs that have been in operation above 62,000 megawatt-days per metric tons of uranium (MWD/ MTU). 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 would allow the use of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/ E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 8872 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183 prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the NMP1 licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing PLRs that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to the plant design and is not an initiator of an accident. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and does not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is operated or maintained. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the probability of a loss-ofcoolant accident or control rod drop accident. In addition, the proposed change does not affect the probability of a fuel handling accident because the method and frequency of fuel movement activities are not changing. Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power and burnup for a PLR is bounded by the power and burnup in the same axial portion of neighboring [full length fuel rods] FLRs. Therefore, since the FLR operating characteristics bound the PLR, and since the power and burnup of the FLRs comply with the limits specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183, the PLRs may operate beyond the 62,000 MWD/MTU burnup limit and meet the intent of NRC RG 1.183. There are no changes in the dose consequences of the analyses of record for the fuel handling accident, control rod drop accident and loss-of-coolant accident. 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 would allow the use of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/ MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183 prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the NMP1 licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing PLRs that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed change does not install any new or different type of equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 The proposed change would allow the use of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/ MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183 prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the NMP1 licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing PLRs that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power and burnup for a PLR is bounded by the power and burnup in the same axial portion of neighboring FLRs. There is no change in the dose consequences of the fuel handling accident, control rod drop accident or lossof-coolant accident analyses of record. The margin of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and NRC RG 1.183, has been maintained. 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 Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama, Docket Nos. 50–424, 50–425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: November 21, 2016. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16326A256. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise the requirements on control and shutdown rods, and rod and bank position indication in 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,’’ consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler (TSTF)–547, Revision 1, ‘‘Clarification of Rod Position Requirements,’’ dated March 4, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Package No. ML16012A126). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. 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 change does not change the limiting conditions for operation for 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 Action 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 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 to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable. Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the consequences. The proposed change to eliminate an unnecessary action has no effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the analysis of those accidents did not consider the use of the action. 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. E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices 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 assumptions made in the safety analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the SRs governing the rods. The proposed change to actions maintains or improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does not introduce 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 allow time for rod position indication to stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide 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 banks must be within the insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary actions 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 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. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date of amendment request: February 9, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical specification requirements for limitations on the radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the references for the radioactive material effluent requirements. Date of issuance: January 11, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 293. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16298A349; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safely Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–3: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR 17506). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8873 Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request: January 21, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated December 27, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.6, ‘‘RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Loops—MODE 4’’; TS 3.4.7, ‘‘RCS Loops—MODE 5, Loops Filled’’; TS 3.4.8, ‘‘RCS Loops—MODE 5, Loops Not Filled’’; TS 3.5.2, ‘‘ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]— Operating’’; TS 3.6.6, ‘‘Containment Spray and Cooling Systems’’; TS 3.9.5, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant Circulation—High Water Level’’; and TS 3.9.6, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant Circulation—Low Water Level.’’ The amendments modified the TS requirements to address Generic Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759), as described in Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-523, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas Accumulation’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075). Date of issuance: January 5, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 228 (Unit 1); 230 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16330A672; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 80 and DPR–82: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 2016 (81 FR 13844). The supplemental letter dated December 27, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 8874 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– 028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: May 12, 2016. Description of amendment: The amendment authorized changes to the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, changing the listed minimum volume of the passive core cooling system core makeup tanks (CMT) as reflected in the Combined License (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TSs), and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. Specifically, this amendment is a departure from the generic AP1000 Design Control Document Tier 2 information as implemented in the plant-specific UFSAR, changing the minimum CMT volume from 2,500 ft3 to 2,487 ft3. The amendment resolves an inconsistency in the licensing documents by aligning the listed minimum CMT volume with that provided in the VCSNS COL Tier 1 information. The amendment also includes an addition to the TS Bases stating that the volume of one CMT is adequate for safety injection in the case of small-break loss-of-coolant accident. No changes were proposed to COL Tier 1 information. Date of issuance: January 10, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 57. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16327A646; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF– 93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43646). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated January 10, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket No. 50– 366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, Appling County, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated November 18, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the values for the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios for both single and dual recirculation loop operation. Date of issuance: January 6, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to reactor startup from the spring 2017 refueling outage. Amendment No.: 226. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16344A126; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–5: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70184). The supplemental letter dated November 18, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: September 30, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification 3.0.2 to allow for a onetime extension of the intervals for Surveillance Requirements 3.6.11.2 and 3.6.11.3. Date of issuance: January 5, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 7 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 3. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A814; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Facility Operating License No. NPF– 96: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR 73442). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: September 23, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the completion date for License Condition 2.C.(9)b for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, and License Condition 2.C.(3) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, regarding the completion of permanent modifications to the Fort Loudoun Dam from February 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. Date of issuance: January 11, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 15 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 109 (Unit 1); 4 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16354A024; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 90 and NPF–96: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 78653). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances) During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices (the Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee’s facility of the licensee’s application and of the Commission’s proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments. In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant’s licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible. Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved. The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission’s related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ section of this document. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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/doccollections/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 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8875 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 E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 8876 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by April 3, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federallyrecognized 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 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 EFiling 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/sitehelp/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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 EFiling 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/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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 E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 31, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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. Arizona Public Service Company (APS), et al., Docket No. STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 3, Maricopa County, Arizona Date of amendment request: December 30, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated January 2, 2017, and January 4, 2017. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) for a one-time extension of the Unit 3 emergency diesel generator (3B DG) completion time described in TS 3.8.1.B.4. Specifically, the emergency riskinformed amendment extended, on a one-time basis, the TS required action 3.8.1.B.4 completion time from 21 days to 62 days for the purpose of completing repairs and testing to reestablish operability of the 3B DG. During surveillance testing on December 15, 2016, the DG suffered a failure of the number nine right cylinder connecting rod and piston. Disassembly and inspection of the damaged 3B DG has been aggressively and continuously pursued since initial failure on December 15, 2016. APS established an Outage Control Center to schedule, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 manage, and oversee the work activities needed for the repairs. Multi-discipline teams were formed to assess the extent of damage, inspect and recover parts, and determine the cause of failure. APS has determined that the cause of failure of the 3B DG is attributed to high-cycle fatigue and that the mode of failure is not common to the ‘‘A’’ train DG or the DGs in Units 1 and 2. Date of issuance: January 4, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to the expiration of the 21-day completion time, or January 5, 2017, at 3:56 a.m. Mountain Time. Amendment No.: 200. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17004A020; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–74: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC): No. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 4, 2017. Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, AZ 85072–2034. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of January 2017. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2017–02034 Filed 1–30–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2016–0069] Information Collection: Suspicious Activity Reporting Using the Protected Web Server (PWS) Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); request for comment. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8877 submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review. The information collection is entitled ‘‘Suspicious Activity Reporting using the Protected Web Server (PWS).’’ DATES: Submit comments by March 2, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150–0219), NEOB– 10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202–395–7315, email: oira_ submission@omb.eop.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–2084; email: INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– 0069 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable 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–2016–0069. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC–2016–0069 on this Web site. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession No. ML16158A401. The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16308A365. • 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. • NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8865-8877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02034]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0009]


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 December 31, 2016, to January 17, 2017. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 17, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by March 2, 2017. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by April 3, 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-2017-0009. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0009, 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-2017-0009.
     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

[[Page 8866]]

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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-2017-0009, 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 if circumstances change during the 30-day comment 
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

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

[[Page 8867]]

establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would 
take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination 
is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards 
consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by April 
3, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing 
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of 
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth 
in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local 
governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency 
thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 
2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. 
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 
CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the

[[Page 8868]]

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 Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2016. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16091A318.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Physical Protection license condition for the facility operating 
license to reflect a change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation 
schedule. Specifically, the completion date for Milestone 8 is proposed 
to be changed from December 31, 2017, to December 31, 2018.
    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 one year extension to the Cyber Security Plan 
implementation schedule for Milestone 8 does not alter the Fuel 
Handling Accident analysis, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications that affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation 
schedule for Milestone 8 does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications that affect the performance capability of 
the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated 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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation and safety analysis described in the FSAR [final 
safety analysis report]. The proposed change revises the Cyber 
Security Plan implementation schedule. The proposed Cyber Milestone 
8 schedule change does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety because the proposed change does not involve 
changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity 
or consequences, or reduce response or mitigation capabilities. 
Because there is no change to these established safety margins as 
result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of Sec.  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 S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson. CHP.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: December 9, 2016. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16348A187.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Physical Protection license condition for the facility operating 
license by removing the existing cyber security license condition from 
the facility operating license.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed removal of the Cyber Security Plan does not alter 
the Fuel Handling Accident analysis, add any initiators, or affect 
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications that affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed removal of the Cyber Security Plan does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications that affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 8869]]

    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.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation and safety analysis described in the FSAR [final 
safety analysis report]. The proposed removal of the Cyber Security 
Plan does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety 
because the proposed change does not involve changes to the initial 
conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences, or 
reduce response or mitigation capabilities. Because there is no 
change to these established safety margins as result of this change, 
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of Sec.  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 S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson, CHP.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 8, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A947.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set 
forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule as previously approved.
    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 to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance 
capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to 
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact 
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    1. 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 CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 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.
    2. 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. The proposed change to 
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In 
addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the 
CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken 
which provide adequate protection during this period of time. 
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result 
of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 2, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML16302A227 and ML16340A018, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
ANO-2 Renewed Facility Operating License NPF-6 specific to license 
conditions and requirements related to the adoption of National Fire 
Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805), based on updated 
information associated with the modifications that were described and 
committed to in the ANO-2 license amendment request that was previously 
approved by the NRC to adopt a new risk-informed, performance-based 
fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements in 
10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c). The amendment would also provide 
updated information related to ignition frequencies, recovery actions, 
use of an NRC-approved fire modeling tool not previously recognized as 
being used by ANO, and dual unit control room abandonment.
    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 purpose of this amendment is to provide updated information 
associated with the modifications that were described and committed 
to the ANO-2 license amendment request that was submitted and 
subsequently approved by the NRC to adopt a new risk-informed, 
performance-based fire protection licensing basis that complies with 
the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as 
the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The amendment 
also provides updated information related to ignition frequencies, 
recovery actions, use of an NRC-approved fire modeling tool not 
previously recognized as being used by ANO, and dual unit control 
room abandonment. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an 
acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to 
identify fire protection requirements that are an acceptable 
alternative to the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, fire protection 
features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
    Operation of ANO-2 in accordance with the proposed amendment 
does not result in a significant increase in the probability or

[[Page 8870]]

consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed 
amendment does not affect accident initiators or precursors as 
described in the ANO-2 Safety Analysis Report (SAR), nor does it 
adversely alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of 
the facility, and it does not adversely impact the ability of 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their intended 
function to mitigate the consequences of accidents described and 
evaluated in the SAR. The proposed amendment does not adversely 
alter safety-related systems nor affect the way in which safety-
related systems perform their functions as required by the accident 
analysis. The SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to 
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of 
performing the associated design functions.
    Therefore, 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.
    Implementation of the new risk-informed, performance-based fire 
protection licensing basis, with the revised modifications, recovery 
actions, application of an NRC-approved fire modeling method for 
ANO, and ignition frequencies, along with the demonstration of the 
risk impact of dual unit abandonment, complies with the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as the guidance 
contained in RG 1.205, and will not result in new or different kinds 
of accidents. The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire 
protection. The impacts of fire effects on the plant have been 
evaluated. The proposed amendment does not involve new failure 
mechanisms or malfunctions that could initiate a new or different 
kind of accident beyond those already analyzed in the SAR.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment has been evaluated to ensure that risk 
and safety margins are maintained within acceptable limits. The risk 
evaluations for plant changes in relation to the potential for 
reducing a safety margin, were measured quantitatively for 
acceptability using the delta risk (i.e., change in core damage 
frequency and change in large early release frequency) criteria from 
Section 5.3.5, ``Acceptance Criteria,'' of NEI [Nuclear Energy 
Institute] 04-02, ``Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, 
Performance-based Fire Protection Program under 10 CFR 50.48(c),'' 
as well as the guidance contained in RG 1.205. Engineering analyses, 
which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety 
assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to 
demonstrate that the performance-based methods of NFPA-805 do not 
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    Therefore, 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: William Glew, Associate General Counsel--
Nuclear Legal, Nuclear and Environmental Entergy Services, Inc., 440 
Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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 
letter dated November 10, 2016. Publicly available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16266A086 and ML16315A112, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 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 CREV system components and their associated testing, 
which no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the 
control room boundary.
    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 any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment eliminates certain CREV system components 
from the Technical Specifications that no longer serve the purpose 
of establishing and isolating the Control Room (CR) boundary. The 
testing related to those components would be eliminated as well.
    The CREV system and its components are not an accident 
initiator. The CREV system and its components required to be 
operable and capable of performing any mitigation function assumed 
in the accident analysis continue to be operated and tested in 
accordance with the applicable TS requirements.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of [any] accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment eliminates certain CREV system components 
that no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the 
Control Room boundary.
    The proposed amendment does not impose any new or different 
requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety 
analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    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 amendment eliminates certain CREV system components 
that no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the 
CR boundary. The testing related to those components would be 
eliminated as well.
    The proposed amendment does not affect the design, operation, 
testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, 
and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards 
(or alternatives approved for use by the NRC). The elimination of 
components that no longer serve the original purpose of establishing 
the CR envelope and isolating the control room from the outside 
atmosphere by placing the CREV system in full recirculation mode 
improves the overall mitigating capabilities of the system by 
eliminating the consequences of any potential failure of a component 
to realign. The CREV system will continue to meet all of its 
requirements as described in the plant licensing basis (including 
the Final Safety Analysis Report and TS Bases). Similarly, there is 
no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the 
plant licensing basis.
    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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.

[[Page 8871]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating 
Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16355A263.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would allow the use 
of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory 
Guide (RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for 
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' for 
partial length rods that are currently in the Limerick Generating 
Station (LGS) Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor core for the remainder of the 
current operating cycle. These partial length rods are expected to 
exceed 62,000 megawatt days per metric ton of uranium (MWD/MTU), which 
is the current rod average burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 
11 of NRC RG 1.183, prior to the end of the operating cycle. In 
addition, the change will revise the LGS licensing basis to allow 
movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that 
have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit.
    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 would allow the use of the release fractions 
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial 
length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor 
core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup 
limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 
prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed 
change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of 
irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have 
been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed 
change does not involve any physical changes to the plant design and 
is not an initiator of an accident. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and does not 
alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the 
plant or the manner in which the plant is operated or maintained. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the probability of a 
loss-of-coolant accident. In addition, the proposed change does not 
affect the probability of a fuel handling accident or control rod 
drop accident because the method and frequency of initiating 
activities are not changing.
    Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power and 
burnup for a partial length rod is within 2.4% of the power and 
burnup in the same axial portion of neighboring full length rods, 
which is minor. Therefore, since the power and burnup of the full 
length rods comply with the limits specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 
of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, the partial length rods may operate 
beyond the 62,000 MWD/MTU burnup limit and meet the intent of NRC 
Regulatory Guide 1.183. There are no changes in the dose 
consequences of the analyses of record for the fuel handling 
accident, control rod drop accident, and loss-of-coolant accident.
    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 would allow the use of the release fractions 
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial 
length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor 
core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup 
limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 
prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed 
change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of 
irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have 
been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed 
change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms that create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed 
change does not install any new or different type of equipment, and 
installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different 
manner. No new effects on existing equipment are created nor are any 
new malfunctions introduced.
    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 would allow the use of the release fractions 
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial 
length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor 
core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup 
limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 
prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed 
change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of 
irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have 
been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. Analyses have been 
performed that demonstrate that the power and burnup for a partial 
length rod is within 2.4% of the power and burnup in the same axial 
portion of neighboring full length rods, which is minor. There is no 
change in the dose consequences of the fuel handling accident, 
control rod drop accident, or loss-of-coolant accident analyses of 
record. The margin of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and NRC 
Regulatory Guide 1.183, has been maintained.
    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 Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego, New York

    Date of amendment request: January 3, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17003A065.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
NMP1 licensing basis related to alternate source term analysis in the 
updated final safety analysis report to allow the use of the release 
fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, 
``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' July 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML003716792), for partial length fuel rods (PLRs) that are operating 
above the peak burnup limit for the remainder of the current operating 
cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the NMP1 licensing 
basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing PLRs that 
have been in operation above 62,000 megawatt-days per metric tons of 
uranium (MWD/MTU).
    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 would allow the use of the release fractions 
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are 
currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to 
exceed the 62,000 MWD/

[[Page 8872]]

MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 
1.183 prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the 
proposed change would revise the NMP1 licensing basis to allow 
movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing PLRs that have been 
in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed change 
does not involve any physical changes to the plant design and is not 
an initiator of an accident. The proposed change does not adversely 
affect accident initiators or precursors, and does not alter the 
design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant or the 
manner in which the plant is operated or maintained. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not affect the probability of a loss-of-coolant 
accident or control rod drop accident. In addition, the proposed 
change does not affect the probability of a fuel handling accident 
because the method and frequency of fuel movement activities are not 
changing.
    Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power and 
burnup for a PLR is bounded by the power and burnup in the same 
axial portion of neighboring [full length fuel rods] FLRs. 
Therefore, since the FLR operating characteristics bound the PLR, 
and since the power and burnup of the FLRs comply with the limits 
specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183, the PLRs may 
operate beyond the 62,000 MWD/MTU burnup limit and meet the intent 
of NRC RG 1.183. There are no changes in the dose consequences of 
the analyses of record for the fuel handling accident, control rod 
drop accident and loss-of-coolant accident.
    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 would allow the use of the release fractions 
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are 
currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to 
exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in 
Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183 prior to the end of the 
operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the 
NMP1 licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles 
containing PLRs that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU 
limit. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or 
mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident. The proposed change does not install any new or different 
type of equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in 
a new or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are 
created nor are any new malfunctions introduced.
    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 would allow the use of the release fractions 
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are 
currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to 
exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in 
Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183 prior to the end of the 
operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the 
NMP1 licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles 
containing PLRs that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU 
limit. Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power 
and burnup for a PLR is bounded by the power and burnup in the same 
axial portion of neighboring FLRs. There is no change in the dose 
consequences of the fuel handling accident, control rod drop 
accident or loss-of-coolant accident analyses of record. The margin 
of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and NRC RG 1.183, has been 
maintained.
    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 Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 
Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16326A256.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the requirements on control and shutdown rods, and rod and bank 
position indication in 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,'' consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications 
Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-547, Revision 1, ``Clarification of Rod 
Position Requirements,'' dated March 4, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Package 
No. ML16012A126).
    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.
    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 change does 
not change the limiting conditions for operation for 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 Action 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 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 to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure 
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable. 
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the 
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the 
consequences.
    The proposed change to eliminate an unnecessary action has no 
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the 
analysis of those accidents did not consider the use of the action.
    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.

[[Page 8873]]

    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 assumptions made in the safety 
analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions 
for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the SRs 
governing the rods. The proposed change to actions maintains or 
improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does not introduce 
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 allow time for rod position indication to 
stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of 
verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual 
rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide 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 banks must be within the 
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the 
requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary 
actions 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness 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.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 9, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
specification requirements for limitations on the radioactive material 
released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the references for the 
radioactive material effluent requirements.
    Date of issuance: January 11, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 293. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16298A349; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safely Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: The amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR 
17506).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of amendment request: January 21, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 27, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.6, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Loops--MODE 
4''; TS 3.4.7, ``RCS Loops--MODE 5, Loops Filled''; TS 3.4.8, ``RCS 
Loops--MODE 5, Loops Not Filled''; TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency Core 
Cooling System]--Operating''; TS 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray and Cooling 
Systems''; TS 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant 
Circulation--High Water Level''; and TS 3.9.6, ``Residual Heat Removal 
(RHR) and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level.'' The amendments 
modified the TS requirements to address Generic Letter 2008-01, 
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML072910759), as described in Technical Specifications Task Force 
Traveler (TSTF)-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas 
Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075).
    Date of issuance: January 5, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 228 (Unit 1); 230 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16330A672; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 2016 (81 FR 
13844). The supplemental letter dated December 27, 2016, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.

[[Page 8874]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 12, 2016.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorized changes to the 
VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, changing the listed minimum volume of the passive 
core cooling system core makeup tanks (CMT) as reflected in the 
Combined License (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TSs), and 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. 
Specifically, this amendment is a departure from the generic AP1000 
Design Control Document Tier 2 information as implemented in the plant-
specific UFSAR, changing the minimum CMT volume from 2,500 ft\3\ to 
2,487 ft\3\. The amendment resolves an inconsistency in the licensing 
documents by aligning the listed minimum CMT volume with that provided 
in the VCSNS COL Tier 1 information. The amendment also includes an 
addition to the TS Bases stating that the volume of one CMT is adequate 
for safety injection in the case of small-break loss-of-coolant 
accident. No changes were proposed to COL Tier 1 information.
    Date of issuance: January 10, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 57. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16327A646; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 
43646).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated January 10, 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 No. 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 
Plant, Unit No. 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 18, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the values 
for the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios for both single and 
dual recirculation loop operation.
    Date of issuance: January 6, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to reactor startup from the spring 2017 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 226. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16344A126; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-5: Amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 11, 2016 (81 FR 
70184). The supplemental letter dated November 18, 2016, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 30, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 3.0.2 to allow for a one-time extension of the intervals 
for Surveillance Requirements 3.6.11.2 and 3.6.11.3.
    Date of issuance: January 5, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 7 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 3. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16343A814; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR 
73442).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: September 23, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
completion date for License Condition 2.C.(9)b for Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 1, and License Condition 2.C.(3) for Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 2, regarding the completion of permanent modifications to 
the Fort Loudoun Dam from February 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018.
    Date of issuance: January 11, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 15 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 109 (Unit 1); 4 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16354A024; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 
78653).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended

[[Page 8875]]

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

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

    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment.
    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

[[Page 8876]]

Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by April 
3, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing 
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of 
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth 
in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local 
governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency 
thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 
2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. 
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 
CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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 8877]]

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.

Arizona Public Service Company (APS), et al., Docket No. STN 50-530, 
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 3, Maricopa County, 
Arizona

    Date of amendment request: December 30, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 2, 2017, and January 4, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) for a one-time extension of the Unit 3 emergency 
diesel generator (3B DG) completion time described in TS 3.8.1.B.4. 
Specifically, the emergency risk-informed amendment extended, on a one-
time basis, the TS required action 3.8.1.B.4 completion time from 21 
days to 62 days for the purpose of completing repairs and testing to 
reestablish operability of the 3B DG.
    During surveillance testing on December 15, 2016, the DG suffered a 
failure of the number nine right cylinder connecting rod and piston. 
Disassembly and inspection of the damaged 3B DG has been aggressively 
and continuously pursued since initial failure on December 15, 2016. 
APS established an Outage Control Center to schedule, manage, and 
oversee the work activities needed for the repairs. Multi-discipline 
teams were formed to assess the extent of damage, inspect and recover 
parts, and determine the cause of failure. APS has determined that the 
cause of failure of the 3B DG is attributed to high-cycle fatigue and 
that the mode of failure is not common to the ``A'' train DG or the DGs 
in Units 1 and 2.
    Date of issuance: January 4, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the expiration of the 21-day completion time, or January 5, 
2017, at 3:56 a.m. Mountain Time.
    Amendment No.: 200. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17004A020; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-74: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 4, 
2017.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of January 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-02034 Filed 1-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P