Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 12130-12142 [2017-03806]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12130-12142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03806]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0058]


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 January 31, 2017 to February 13, 2017. The 
last biweekly notice was published on February 14, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed March 30, 2017. A request for a hearing 
must be filed May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0058. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual or individuals 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: Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0058, 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0058.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://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. 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.

[[Page 12131]]

     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-2017-0058, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 12132]]

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 May 
1, 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's

[[Page 12133]]

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.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: December 22, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17006A007.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate the 
Component Cyclic or Transient Limits Program requirements to the 
Administrative Controls sections of the Technical Specifications (TSs), 
and relocate the Component Cyclic or Transient Limits tables detailing 
the allowable limits from the respective TSs to licensee-controlled 
documents.
    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 relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits Table 
5.9-1 and Table 5.7-1 from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to 
the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 UFSARs [Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Reports], and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or 
Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1 
and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. The TS 
changes do not represent any physical change to plant systems, 
structures, or components, or to procedures established for plant 
operation. As such, the initial conditions associated with accidents 
previously evaluated and plant systems credited for mitigating the 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated remain unchanged.
    Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed 
license amendments would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits tables 
from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to the St. Lucie Unit 1 
and Unit 2 UFSARs, and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or 
Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1 
and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. No physical 
change to plant systems, structures, or components, or the manner in 
which they are operated and maintained will result from the proposed 
license amendments.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits tables 
from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to the St. Lucie Unit 1 
and Unit 2 UFSARs, and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or 
Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1 
and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. As such, the 
proposed changes do not involve changes to any safety analyses 
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings nor 
do they adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability 
of equipment credited in safety analyses.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

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

Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, 
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16351A198.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
the note regarding applicability of the limiting condition for 
operation (LCO) for CNP Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.3, 
``Containment Penetrations.''
    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 accident in question for this submittal is the FHA [fuel-
handling accident]. The analysis for the FHA was recently reviewed 
and approved by the NRC for a license amendment request regarding 
use of alternative source term. The proposed amendment to TS 3.9.3 
does not impact the assumed release pathway for the accident and has 
no effect on the probability of the occurrence of any accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter any plant 
equipment or operating practices in such a manner that the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated is increased. The 
consequences of [an] FHA inside the containment building with open 
penetration flow paths is bounded by the current FHA analyses and 
administrative controls, so the probability of an accident is not 
affected by the status of the penetration flow paths.
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated will not be significantly increased.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Allowing penetration flow paths to be open is not an initiator 
for any accident. The change impacts the containment requirements 
during refueling operations. The only accident which could result in 
significant releases of radioactivity during refueling is the FHA. 
The proposed change does not affect the design of containment, or 
alter plant operating practices such that it creates the possibility 
of a new or different

[[Page 12134]]

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The 
proposed allowance to open any containment penetration under 
administrative controls during fuel movement will not adversely 
affect plant safety functions such that a new or different accident 
could be created. No other initiators or accident precursors are 
created by this change.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident not previously evaluated is not created.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    TS 3.9.3 closure requirements for containment penetrations 
ensure that the consequences of a postulated FHA inside containment 
during irradiated fuel handling activities are minimized. The LCO 
establishes containment closure requirements, which limit the 
potential escape paths for fission products by ensuring that there 
is at least one barrier to the release of radioactive material. The 
proposed change to allow any containment penetration flow path to be 
open during refueling operations under administrative controls does 
not significantly affect the expected dose consequences of [an] FHA 
because the limiting FHA does not credit containment building 
closure or filtration. The administrative controls provide assurance 
that closure of the applicable penetration flow paths will be 
accomplished and that the offsite dose consequences will be 
minimized in the event of [an] FHA inside the containment building.
    Therefore, this 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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 20, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17020A097.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to depart from Tier 2* information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report to address the seismic Category and AP1000 equipment class of 
nonsafety-related instrumentation that interfaces with safety-related 
pressure boundaries.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument 
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related 
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be 
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake 
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The 
safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the fire protection 
analysis results are not adversely affected. The proposed changes do 
not involve any accident, initiating event or component failure; 
thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are 
not affected. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
compliance with the maximum allowable reactor coolant system 
operational leakage rates specified in the Technical Specifications, 
and radiological material release source terms are not affected; 
thus, the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument 
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related 
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be 
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake 
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related system, 
structure, or component. The nonsafety-related instrumentation 
provides information for nonsafety-related display and does not 
control any safety-related feature. Thus, the proposed changes do 
not introduce a new failure mode. The proposed changes to the 
nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology do not 
create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a 
radioactive material release.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument 
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related 
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be 
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake 
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The 
upgrade in the qualification of the sensing lines and associated 
instrument isolation valves does not affect the function of the 
safety-related systems to which they are connected. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the proposed change, thus no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 16, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 12, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML16351A483 and ML17012A272, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to depart from Tier 2* information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report to address the seismic Category and AP1000 equipment class of 
nonsafety-related instrumentation that interfaces with safety-related 
pressure boundaries.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument 
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related 
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be 
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake 
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The 
safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the fire protection 
analysis results are not adversely affected. The proposed changes do 
not involve any accident, initiating event or component failure; 
thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are 
not

[[Page 12135]]

affected. The proposed change does not adversely affect compliance 
with the maximum allowable reactor coolant system operational 
leakage rates specified in the Technical Specifications, and 
radiological material release source terms are not affected; thus, 
the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument 
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related 
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be 
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake 
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related system, 
structure, or component. The nonsafety-related instrumentation 
provides information for nonsafety-related display and does not 
control any safety-related feature. Thus, the proposed changes do 
not introduce a new failure mode. The proposed changes to the 
nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology do not 
create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a 
radioactive material release.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument 
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related 
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be 
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake 
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The 
upgrade in the qualification of the sensing lines and associated 
instrument isolation valves does not affect the function of the 
safety-related systems to which they are connected. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the proposed change, thus no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia; Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama; Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, 
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: December 1, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16340A005.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
technical specifications requirements in Section 1.3 and Section 3.0 
regarding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) usage. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify 
Use and Application Rules.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect 
on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on 
the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3 
states that the allowance may only be used when there is a 
reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed. 
Since the proposed change does not significantly affect system 
Operability, the proposed change will have no significant effect on 
the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will 
have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate 
accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the 
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does 
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the 
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and 
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when a SR has not 
been previously performed if there is a reasonable expectation that 
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3 
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its 
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or 
unaffected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel of Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 
40 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 15, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 13, 2017. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML16320A207 and ML17013A603, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
TS requirements to operate ventilation systems with charcoal filters 
from 10 hours to 15 minutes each month in accordance with TSTF-522, 
Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to 
Operate for 10 hours per Month.'' The NRC approved TSTF-522, Revision 
0, as a part of the consolidated line item improvement process on 
September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS [Control Room 
Emergency Filtration System] equipped with

[[Page 12136]]

electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period at a frequency 
specified in the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program] with 
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with 
heaters operating, if needed.
    This system is not an accident initiator and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS system equipped with 
electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period at a frequency 
specified in the SFCP with a requirement to operate the system for 
15 continuous minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
    The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not 
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS systems equipped with 
electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period at a frequency 
specified in the SFCP with a requirement to operate the systems for 
15 continuous minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
    The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat 
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater 
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the 
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design 
function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory 
guidance.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: November 15, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16320A214.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
technical specifications (TS) by relocating references to specific 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for fuel 
oil testing to licensee-controlled documents and adding alternate 
criteria to the ``clear and bright'' acceptance test for new fuel oil. 
These TS changes will be performed in accordance with technical 
specification task force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-374, Revision 0, ``Diesel 
Fuel Oil Testing Program.'' The NRC approved TSTF-374, Revision 0, as a 
part of the consolidated line item improvement process on April 21, 
2006 (71 FR 20735).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard 
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a 
licensee-controlled document. Requirements to perform testing in 
accordance with applicable ASTM standards are retained in the TS as 
are requirements to perform surveillances of both new and stored 
diesel fuel oil. Future changes to the licensee-controlled document 
will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, 
``Changes, tests and experiments,'' to ensure that such changes do 
not result in more than a minimal increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the 
``clear and bright'' test used to establish the acceptability of new 
fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been 
expanded to recognize more rigorous testing of water and sediment 
content. Relocating the specific ASTM standard references from the 
TS to a licensee-controlled document and allowing a water and 
sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability 
of new fuel oil will not affect nor degrade the ability of the 
emergency diesel generators (DGs) to perform their specified safety 
function. Fuel oil quality will continue to meet ASTM requirements.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to 
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts 
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the changes do 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 accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard 
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a 
licensee-controlled document. In addition, the ``clear and bright'' 
test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use 
prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to allow a 
water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the 
acceptability of new fuel oil. The changes do not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The requirements retained in the TS continue to require 
testing of the diesel fuel oil to ensure the proper functioning of 
the DGs.
    Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard 
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a 
licensee-controlled document. Instituting the proposed changes will 
continue to ensure the use of applicable ASTM standards to evaluate 
the quality of both new and stored fuel oil designated for use in 
the emergency DGs. Changes to the licensee-controlled document are 
performed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. This 
approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and 
ensures that diesel fuel oil testing is conducted such that there is 
no significant reduction in a margin of safety. The ``clear and 
bright'' test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil 
for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to 
allow a water and sediment content test to be performed to establish 
the acceptability of new fuel oil.

[[Page 12137]]

The margin of safety provided by the DGs is unaffected by the 
proposed changes since there continue to be TS requirements to 
ensure fuel oil is of the appropriate quality for emergency DG use. 
The proposed changes provide the flexibility needed to improve fuel 
oil sampling and analysis methodologies while maintaining sufficient 
controls to preserve the current margins of safety.

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

    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 15, 2016. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16320A219.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would add 
technical specifications (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
3.0.10 for unavailable barriers as described in TSTF-427, Revision 
2, ``Allowance for Non Technical Specification Barrier Degradation 
on Supported System OPERABILITY.'' The NRC approved TSTF-427, 
Revision 2, as a part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444).
    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:

    Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due 
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. 
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional 
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and 
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for 
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, 
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the 
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the 
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions 
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a 
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change 
will further minimize possible concerns.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility 
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when 
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is 
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or 
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further 
minimize possible concerns.
    Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.

    Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety

    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable 
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating 
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those 
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety 
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated 
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed 
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory 
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify 
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated 
upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the 
management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is 
insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of 
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage 
probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release 
probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety 
Evaluation.
    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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 20, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16294A551.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications related to the auxiliary building gas 
treatment system (ABGTS) to provide an action for when the auxiliary 
building secondary containment enclosure (ABSCE) boundary is degraded, 
and to allow the ABSCE boundary to be open intermittently under 
administrative controls without entering the associated ABGTS limiting 
condition for operation. The proposed changes are consistent with 
NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants,'' 
Revision 4, dated April 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12100A222).
    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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not require physical changes to plant 
systems, structures, or components. The ABGTS is an accident 
mitigating feature. As such, ABGTS is not associated with a 
potential accident-initiating mechanism.
    Therefore, the changes do not affect accident or transient 
initiation or consequences.
    The proposed new condition for the ABGTS TS would permit a 24 
hour period to restore an inoperable pressure boundary to operable 
status. The consequences of implementing the 24 hour completion time 
are reasonable based upon the low probability of a design basis 
accident occurring during this time period, and the availability of 
a functional ABGTS train to provide a filtered release to the 
environment (albeit with the potential for unfiltered leakage).
    For cases where the ABSCE boundary is opened intermittently 
under administrative controls, appropriate compensatory measures 
would be required by the proposed TS to ensure the ABSCE boundary 
can be rapidly restored and the dose analysis assumptions can be 
supported. Based on the administrative controls required to rapidly 
restore an opened ABSCE boundary, the accident consequences do not 
cause an increase in dose above the applicable General Design 
Criteria, Standard Review Plan, or 10 CFR 100 limits. The plant 
operators will

[[Page 12138]]

continue to maintain the ability to mitigate a design basis event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would not require any new or different 
accidents to be postulated and subsequently evaluated, since no 
changes are being made to the plant that would introduce any new 
accident causal mechanisms. This license amendment request does not 
impact any plant systems that are potential accident initiators; nor 
does it have any significantly adverse impact on any accident 
mitigating systems.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design, 
including instrument setpoints, nor does it change the assumptions 
contained in the safety analyses. Margin of safety is related to the 
ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design 
functions during and following accident conditions. These barriers 
include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the 
containment system. The performance of these barriers will not be 
significantly degraded by the proposed changes. The proposed changes 
would allow the ABSCE boundary to be degraded for a limited period 
of time (24 hours). However, the probability of a design basis event 
occurring during this time is low. Additionally, a functional ABGTS 
train will be available to provide a filtered release to the 
environment (albeit with the potential for unfiltered leakage). When 
the ABSCE boundary is open on an intermittent basis, as permitted by 
the changes proposed in this amendment request, administrative 
controls would be in place to ensure that the integrity of the 
pressure boundaries could be rapidly restored and the dose analysis 
assumptions can be supported. Therefore, it is expected that the 
plant and the operators would maintain the ability to mitigate 
design basis events and none of the fission product barriers would 
be affected by this change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice 
President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West 
Summit Hill Drive, 6A Tower West, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

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: October 17, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16291A543.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow a one-time extension of the 
frequency for performing certain TS Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 
related to verifying the operability of alternating current electrical 
power sources.
    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 requested action is a one-time extension to the performance 
interval of a limited number of TS surveillance requirements. The 
performance of these surveillances, or the extension of these 
surveillances, is not a precursor to an accident. Performing these 
surveillances or failing to perform these surveillances does not 
affect the probability of an accident. Therefore, the proposed delay 
in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not 
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    A delay in performing these surveillances does not result in a 
system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of 
this one-time extension request, the short period of additional time 
that the systems and components will be in service before the next 
performance of the surveillance will not affect the ability of those 
systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to 
mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required 
function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this 
action and the consequences remain consistent with previously 
evaluated accidents. On this basis, the proposed delay in 
performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of an 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 amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of 
any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any 
SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation 
of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those 
previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will 
be introduced by the one-time SR extensions being requested.
    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 is a one-time extension of the 
performance interval of a limited number of TS surveillance 
requirements. Extending these surveillance requirements does not 
involve a modification of any TS limiting conditions for operation. 
Extending these SRs does not involve a change to any limit on 
accident consequences specified in the license or regulations. 
Extending these SRs does not involve a change in how accidents are 
mitigated or a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in a 
methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending 
these SRs does not involve a change in any operating procedure or 
process.
    The instrumentation and components involved in this request have 
exhibited reliable operation based on current test results. The 
current testing includes power ascension testing and surveillance 
testing that either partially or fully exercised the components. 
Some components have been evaluated for extended testing intervals 
greater than 18 months but are set at WBN to an 18-month frequency.
    Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems 
and components will be in service before the surveillances are next 
performed, as well as the operating experience that these 
surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the margins of safety associated with 
these SRs will not be affected by the requested extension.
    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: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President 
and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill 
Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

[[Page 12139]]

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

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16351A200.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
licensee's name from ``TEX Operations Company LLC'' to ``Vistra 
Operations Company LLC'' into the CPNPP Unit 1 Operating License (NPF-
87), CPNPP Unit 2 Operating License (NPF-89), and the title page of the 
Environmental Protection Plan.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The 
proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the 
licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the 
design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the 
accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated 
final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The 
proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the 
licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the 
design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the 
accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated 
final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The 
proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the 
licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the 
design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the 
accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated 
final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
    Therefore the proposed change does not involve a 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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to add a note to TS Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 4.1.3.1.2, control element assembly (CEA) freedom of 
movement surveillance, such that CEA 39 may be excluded from the 
remaining quarterly performance of the SR in Cycle 24. The amendment 
allows the licensee to delay exercising CEA 39 until after repairs can 
be made during the next outage.
    Date of issuance: February 7, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 333. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17018A000; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR 
157).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 25, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 13, 2015; January 28, 2015; February 27, 2015; 
March 30, 2015; April 28, 2015; July 15, 2015; August 14, 2015; 
September 3, 2015; December 11, 2015; January 7, 2016; March 23, 2016; 
June 15, 2016; August 2, 2016; September 7, 2016 and January 27, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
condition for the Fire Protection Program (FPP) in the Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses such that the FPP is now based on the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.48(c), ``National Fire Protection Association Standard 
NFPA 805.''
    Date of issuance: February 8, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
as

[[Page 12140]]

stated within the revised License Condition 2.C.(5).
    Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit 1) and 283 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A308; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2014 (79 FR 
6641). The supplemental letters dated January 13, 2015; January 28, 
2015; February 27, 2015; March 30, 2015; April 28, 2015; July 15, 2015; 
August 14, 2015; September 3, 2015; December 11, 2015; January 7, 2016; 
March 23, 2016; June 15, 2016; August 2, 2016; September 7, 2016 and 
January 27, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 8, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 16, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 24, and December 22, 2014; January 22, March 16, 
April 1, May 19, and July 31, 2015; March 16, May 25, July 25, and 
October 5, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized the 
transition of the fire protection licensing basis, from 10 CFR 
50.50.48(b) to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire Protection Association 
(NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-
water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001 edition. The revised 
fire protection licensing basis complies with the requirements in 10 
CFR 50.48(a), 10 CFR 50.48(c), the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, 
Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire protection for 
Existing Light-water Nuclear Power Plants, and NFPA 805, and follows 
the applicable guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute 04-02, Revision 2.
    Date of issuance: February 3, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
as described in the transition license conditions.
    Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16337A264; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 26, 2013 (78 
FR 78405). The supplemental letters dated November 24, and December 22, 
2014; January 22, March 16, April 1, May 19, and July 31, 2015; March 
16, May 25, July 25, and October 5, 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 February 3, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of application for amendment: March 3, 2016, as supplemented 
by letter dated January 19, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements for heaters in the Standby 
Gas Treatment and Control Room Emergency Filtration ventilation 
systems. The proposed amendment is consistent with NRC-approved 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 
0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 
10 hours per Month,'' as published in the Federal Register on September 
20, 2012 (77 FR 58421), with variations due to plant-specific 
nomenclature.
    Date of issuance: January 31, 2017.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 239. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16357A646; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR 
32805). The supplemental letter dated January 19, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not change 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 14, June 28, and November 30, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) Specific Activity definition and associated 
surveillance requirements in the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 
Technical Specifications (TSs). The amendment replaced the current TS 
limit for RCS gross specific activity with a new limit for RCS noble 
gas specific activity. The changes are consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-490, Revision 0, ``Deletion of E 
Bar Definition and Revision to RCS Specific Activity Tech Spec.''
    Date of issuance: February 9, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 123. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16358A424; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR 
17506).
    The supplemental letters dated April 4, June 28, and November 30, 
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards

[[Page 12141]]

consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: April 4, 2016, as supplemented 
by letters dated September 1, November 10, and December 2, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for snubbers and added a new TS to the 
Administrative Controls section of the TSs describing the licensee's 
Snubber Testing Program. The amendments revised the snubber TS 
surveillance requirement (SR) by deleting specific requirements from 
the SR and replacing them with a requirement to demonstrate snubber 
operability in accordance with the licensee-controlled Snubber Testing 
Program. The amendments deleted a portion of the SR that requires 
inspections per another TS that is no longer applicable to snubbers. 
The amendments included additions to, deletions from, and conforming 
administrative changes to the TSs.
    Date of issuance: February 9, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 272 and 267. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17004A292; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 
43652). The supplement dated September 1, 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 (NSHC) 
determination as published in the Federal Register (FR). The licensee's 
letter dated November 10, 2016, expanded the scope of its request as 
originally noticed; therefore, the NRC published another notice in the 
FR on December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87971), which replaced the original 
notice in its entirety. The licensee's letter dated December 2, 2016, 
did not expand the scope of the application as renoticed and did not 
change the staff's NSHC determination that was published in the FR on 
December 6, 2016.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, 
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment requests: January 15, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 27, 2016 and July 27, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments eliminate technical 
specification (TS) 3.7.14, Primary Auxiliary Building Ventilation 
(VNPAB), for PBNP, Units 1 and 2. The amendments delete TS 3.7.14, 
VNPAB in its entirety on the basis that the VNPAB is not credited for 
accident mitigation and therefore does not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 
criteria for inclusion in the TS.
    Date of issuance: January 30, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 257 and 261. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16349A080; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2016 (81 FR 
24662). The supplemental letters dated April 27, 2016 and July 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 27, 2016, and December 15, 2016.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the current 
emergency action level scheme to one based on Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency 
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' dated November 2012.
    Date of issuance: February 10, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 152. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16358A411; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR 
32808). The supplemental letters dated October 27, 2016, and December 
15, 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 February 10, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272 and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station (Hope Creek), and Salem Nuclear Generating Station 
(Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: October 17, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 19, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs) by removing certain training program 
requirements. Specifically, the amendments removed TS requirements that 
are redundant to, or superseded by, the requirements contained in 10 
CFR part 55 and 10 CFR 50.120.
    Date of issuance: February 6, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 201 (Hope Creek), 317 (Salem, Unit No. 1), and 298 
(Salem, Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17012A292; documents related to these amendments

[[Page 12142]]

are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81 
FR 83877). The supplemental letter dated December 19, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 6, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 52-025, Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit 3, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: September 13, 2016.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the 
VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of 
departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control Document 
Tier 2* information. The departures change the provided minimum 
reinforcement area in the VEGP Unit 3 column line 7.3 wall from 
elevation 82'-6'' to elevation 100'-0''.
    Date of issuance: January 30, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 68. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16350A060; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91: Amendment revised the 
Facility Combined License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 11, 2016 (81 FR 
70175).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 27, 2016.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the 
VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of 
departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control Document 
Tier 2 information and involves changes to COL Appendix A Technical 
Specifications and associated Bases. The changes add reactor coolant 
density compensation to the reactor coolant flow input signal to the 
Reactor Trip System instrumentation for the low reactor coolant flow 
reactor trip function and add Technical Specification Surveillance 
Requirement 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the Reactor 
Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip.
    Date of issuance: January 13, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 65. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16348A073; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR 
50729).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated January 13, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-03806 Filed 2-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P