Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 47032-47044 [2017-21607]

Download as PDF sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 47032 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices action on possible noncompliance, and examining facts following an incident. Therefore, their retention would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule. Once removed from licensing basis documents, SSCs are no longer governed by the NRC’s regulations, and therefore, are not subject to compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment. Therefore, retention of these records does not serve the underlying purpose of the rule of maintaining compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment or to accomplish the NRC’s mission. Records, which continue to serve the underlying purpose of the rule, that is, to maintain compliance and to protect public health and safety, will continue to be retained under regulations in 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. These retained records not subject to the exemption include those associated with programmatic controls, such as those pertaining to residual radioactivity, security, quality assurance, etc., and records associated with the ISFSI and spent fuel assemblies. Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) states, in part, ‘‘Special circumstance are present whenever—. . . (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted . . . .’’ The retention of records required by 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII, 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), and 10 CFR 50.71(c) provides assurance that records associated with SSCs will be captured, indexed, and stored in an environmentally suitable and retrievable condition. Given the volume of records associated with the SSCs, compliance with the records retention rules results in a considerable cost to the licensee. Retention of the volume of records associated with these SSCs during the operations phase is appropriate to serve the underlying purpose of providing information to the Commission for examination in the case of an event, incident, or other problem involving the public health and safety, as discussed above. However, the cost effect of retaining operations phase records beyond the operations phase until the termination of the license was not fully considered or understood. Therefore, compliance with the rule would result in an undue cost in excess of that contemplated when the rule was adopted. The granted exemptions apply to records that are associated with SSCs that had supported the operations phase of electricity generation and wet storage VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 of spent fuel assemblies, and that have been, or will be, retired in place, prepared for dismantlement, and removed from licensing basis documents. Records that continue to apply to retired SSCs during the SAFSTOR and decommissioning phase, such as records associated with programmatic controls pertaining to residual radioactivity, security, quality assurance, etc., and records associated with the ISFSI and spent fuel assemblies, will continue to be maintained in an environmentally suitable and retrievable condition. or consequences from radiological accidents. Allowing the licensee partial exemption from record retention requirements from which the exemption is sought involve recordkeeping requirements, reporting requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 51.22(c)(25), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request. Environmental Considerations Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation in 10 CFR Chapter I is a categorical exclusion provided that (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi). The Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has determined that approval of the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because allowing the licensee exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c), at the permanently shutdown and defueled FCS does 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. Accordingly, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The exempted regulation is not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulation does not concern the source term (i.e., potential amount of radiation in an accident), nor mitigation. Therefore, there is no significant increase in the potential for, IV. Conclusions Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c) are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants OPPD’s partial exemptions from 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c) to advance the schedule to remove records associated with SSCs that have been removed from the NRC’s licensing basis documents by appropriate change mechanisms. PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of October 2017. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2017–21762 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2017–0201] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. AGENCY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 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 September 12, 2017, to September 25, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on September 26, 2017. DATES: Comments must be filed by November 9, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 11, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2017–0201. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–8–D36M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 0201, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this action by any of the following methods: • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2017–0201. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2017– 0201, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http:// www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission’s regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47033 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 60day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC’s Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC’s Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 47034 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this document. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c). If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 EFiling process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC’s Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC’s Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically using the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC’s electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https:// adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publiclyavailable 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. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket Nos. 50–245, 50–336, and 50–423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: June 15, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17171A232. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47035 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, by administratively changing the company name ‘‘Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.’’ with ‘‘Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.’’ Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment to each license is administrative in nature. DNC, which will be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee authorized to operate and possess the units, and its functions, powers, resources and management will not change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated accidents are not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment to each license is purely administrative in nature. The functions of the licensee will not change. These changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment to each license is administrative in nature. DNC, which will be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee authorized to operate and possess the units, and its functions will not change. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. There are no changes to setpoints at which protective actions are E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 47036 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices initiated, and the operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Energy, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO–1), Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198F072. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) for ANO–1 and would establish a new Completion Time in ANO–1 TS 3.7.5, ‘‘Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System,’’ where one steam supply to the turbine driven EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motordriven EFW train. The amendment would also establish changes to the TSs that establish specific Actions: (1) For when the motor driven EFW train is inoperable at the same time and; (2) for when the turbine-driven EFW train is inoperable either (a) due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply. The amendment request was submitted in accordance with NRCapproved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–412, Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW [Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump Inoperable,’’ with certain plant-specific deviations identified in the application. The availability of this TS improvement was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2007 (72 FR 39089), as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration determination, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 consequences of any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) System is not an initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes to address the condition of one or two motor driven AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one steam supply inoperable do not change the response of the plant to any accidents. 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 change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the AFW/ EFW System provides plant protection. The AFW/EFW System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to the Conditions and Required Actions do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios. 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. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. Therefore, it is concluded that 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. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20001. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198F356. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the technical specifications (TSs) for ANO– 2 by establishing Actions and Allowable Outage Times in TS 3.7.1.2, ‘‘Emergency Feedwater [EFW] System,’’ for several combinations of inoperable EFW trains, consistent with NUREG–1432, ‘‘Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants,’’ Revision 4. Revision 4 of NUREG–1432 includes changes incorporated by Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-340, Revision 3, ‘‘Allow 7 Day Completion Time for a Turbine-Driven AFW [Auxiliary Feedwater] Pump Inoperable,’’ and TSTF–412, Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.’’ Certain proposed deviations from the NUREG–1432, Revision 4, TS changes are identified in the application. 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. E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices The proposed changes clarify the operability requirements of the EFW system and provide appropriate remedial actions to be performed respective to potential EFW configurations or out-of-service periods, consistent with the STS [standard technical specifications]. The EFW system is not an initiator of any design basis accident or event and, therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The EFW system is used to respond to accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change affects only the actions taken when portions of the EFW system are unavailable and does not affect the design of the EFW system. 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, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the EFW system provides plant protection. The EFW system will continue to supply water to the Steam Generators (SGs) to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the SGs. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to the related TS Actions do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios. 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. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in continued plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. 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: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20001. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: August 30, 2017. A publicly-available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17242A211. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Oyster Creek Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–16, Section 2.C, License Condition (5) by replacing Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Vessel and Internals Project technical report BWRVIP–18, Revision 0, as approved by NRC staff’s Final Safety Evaluation Report dated December 2, 1999, with the latest BWRVIP–18 revision approved on December 21, 2016. 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 change to the License Condition 2.C.(5) requirements for inspection of Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components does not alter the use of the inspection methods and criteria used to determine the capability of the Core Spray System to perform its intended safety function that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed change is in accordance with an NRC approved inspection and flaw evaluation guideline and as such, maintains required safety margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47037 assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Incorporating NRG-approved inspection frequency and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components has no physical effect on plant equipment and therefore, no impact on the course of plant transients. Therefore, the proposed change does 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 incorporation of NRCapproved inspection frequency and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components is a change based upon previously approved documents and does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not introduce any new accident precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. The use of inspection frequency and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components in accordance with NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and criteria provides adequate assurance that the Core Spray System can perform its safety function as required by the plant-specific [loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)]-analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not decrease the margin of safety. The proposed change in inspection criteria maintains the current safety margin, which protects the fuel E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 47038 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices cladding integrity during a postulated LOCA event, but does not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment, which remains unchanged. The proposed change to License Condition 2.C.(5) is consistent with NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and criteria and provides adequate assurance that the Core Spray System can perform its safety function as required by the plant-specific LOCAanalysis. No setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design and does not change the Technical Specification operability requirements; thus, previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of amendment request: July 28, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17212A034. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the direct current (DC) battery Technical Specifications 3.8.2.1, 3.8.2.2, 3.8.3.1, and 3.8.3.2 such that a DC electrical train is operable with one 100 percent capacity battery aligned to both DC buses in the associated electrical train. The amendment also proposes to remove a footnote to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.1 associated with DC battery checks. 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? VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 Response: No. The technical specification (TS) limiting conditions for operation and required actions associated with the proposed changes to the TS are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed change does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant structure, system, or component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS-required SSC to perform its specified safety function is not impacted by the proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of accidents previously evaluated are unaffected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or performance of any safetyrelated systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or performance of any safetyrelated systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do 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 the margin of safety? Response: No. The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. The changes do not adversely affect plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. With the proposed change, each DC electrical trains remains fully capable of performing its safety function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis, and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney, Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420. NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50–424, 50–425, 52–025, and 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of Dalton, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 30, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A202. Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate the emergency operations facility for the eight units of the SNC nuclear fleet from the SNC corporate headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama, to a new location 1.3 miles away. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to relocate the consolidated EOF [emergency operations facility] within Birmingham, Alabama, requires no change to the required staff response time for supplementing onsite personnel in response to a radiological emergency. The relocated EOF is along the same major roadway and response personnel will be able to access the facility, using for the most part, the same path they currently use to travel to the corporate office. The license amendment does not request a change to the response time and the facility will be functional within the same timeframe as for the existing EOF. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The proposed change has no effect on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components [(SSCs)]. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of the emergency response organization to perform its intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change only concerns implementation of the standard emergency plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance (1.3 miles) from its current location. The new location will not change the time the facility will be functional to provide emergency response. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The proposed change will not change the design function or operation of SSCs. The change does not impact the accident analysis for any of the SNC nuclear plants. The change does not involve a physical alteration of any of the plants, a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed change does not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in safety analyses. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change only impacts the implementation of the emergency plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance (1.3 miles) within Birmingham, Alabama. The change does not the affect staff response time or the time it takes to make the facility operational to perform its intended emergency response functions. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is associated with the emergency plan and does not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change does not affect Technical Specifications. The change does not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and accident analyses will not be affected by the proposed change. Safety analyses acceptance criteria are not affected. The standard emergency plan and the plant annexes will continue to provide the required response staff for performing major tasks for the functional areas of the emergency plans. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 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, Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A088. Description of amendment request: The requested amendments propose to depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Document by proposing changes to the combined license (COL) and the COL Appendix A, Technical Specifications. Specifically, the amendments, if approved, would revise the COL documents mentioned previously to reflect the proposed changes to the reactor coolant system and main steam line leakage detection systems for detection of leakage at all times and consideration of instrument sensitivities not accounted for. 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, with NRC staff edits in square brackets: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The [reactor coolant system (RCS)] leakage detection systems provide early warning of abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) or the main steam lines inside containment so that actions can be taken to prevent pipe breaks. The change proposed to limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.4.9 adds limited periods during which the containment sump level and/or containment atmosphere F18 particulate monitor are not required to be operable— during and for 2 hours after use of the containment purge flow path, and during incontainment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) gutter drain isolation valve closure and for 2 hours after reopening the valves— and proposes a compensatory increase in the frequency of the RCS inventory balance during these periods. Containment purge, containment venting and IRWST gutter drain isolation valve closure are evolutions associated with normal operating conditions. The probability of a leakage flaw growing to a size that would cause pipe failure during and for 2 hours after IRWST gutter drain isolation valve inservice testing or a containment venting evolution is low because the durations of the test and venting PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47039 evolution are short. The probability of a leakage flaw growing to a size that would cause pipe failure during and for 2 hours after a containment purge operation is low because containment purge operations at power are infrequent, and because containment purge in preparation for refueling is conducted concurrent with operations that will put the plant in operating modes for which LCO 3.4.9 is not applicable (MODES 5 and 6). The RCS inventory balance method of leak detection is quantitative and remains available when the plant has been operating at steady state for at least 12 hours and the leakage instrumentation is not required to be operable. In addition, the leak detection instruments will remain functional and have sensitivities such that the instrumentation will still be useful as a leak detection aid to operators during a containment purge operation or IRWST gutter drain isolation valve inservice testing. The RCS leakage detection instrumentation is not credited with consequence mitigation during any accident previously evaluated. Existing Required Action A.1 is intended to determine whether the remaining required containment sump level instrument is functioning properly when one of the required instruments is inoperable. Removal of Required Action A.1 does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because a new Surveillance Requirement is proposed which will provide more appropriate monitoring to assess operability of the remaining required containment sump level channel. 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 failure of the leak detection systems to detect small leaks in the reactor coolant pressure boundary could lead to large undetected leaks and possibly a loss of coolant accident. Loss of coolant accidents for a spectrum of pipe sizes and locations are already postulated in [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] Chapter 15, Section 15.6. Breaks in the main steam lines inside containment are also analyzed in UFSAR Chapter 15, Section 15.1. Unidentified leakage detection and operator action in response to unidentified leakage are not postulated for any of the design basis accident analyses described in UFSAR Chapter 15. 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 amendment does not reduce RCS leakage detection instrument availability with respect to IRWST gutter drain isolation valve closure or reactor power level. The changes to compensate for instrument sensitivities during containment purge E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 47040 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices operation do not represent a significant portion of the expected operating time in MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. The containment purge isolation valves are opened temporarily during plant startup to relieve containment pressure increase due to thermal expansion. Containment purge during power operation may be required to support containment entry—which is infrequent. The containment purge flow paths are also used for venting the containment atmosphere to control containment pressure differential as weather changes affect ambient pressure. When the containment purge system is not being used to support personnel access into containment or to control the containment atmospheric pressure, the containment air filtration system containment isolation valves are maintained in their normally closed position. The IRWST gutter drain isolation valves are cycled quarterly, but are normally maintained in the open position. Therefore, use of the containment purge flow paths and closure of the IRWST gutter drain isolation valves do not represent a significant portion of the time in power operation. In addition, the action to perform a RCS inventory balance on a greater frequency during these evolutions will provide more appropriate monitoring to assess operability of the leak detection instrumentation. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Removing existing Required Action A.1 and adding surveillance of the containment sump level channels does not significantly decrease the margin of safety. The prescribed Action did not provide definitive information about instrument performance or operability. The new Surveillance Requirement proposed will provide a history of the operational performance of the containment sump level instrumentation that will better assist in the determination of instrument operability. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL 35203–2015. NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia Date of amendment request: May 23, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17150A302. Description of amendment request: The amendments would add operability requirements, required actions, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 instrument settings, and surveillance requirements to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the 4160 volt (V) emergency bus negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function. Specifically, the proposed amendments would revise TS Table 3.7–2, ‘‘Engineered Safeguards Action, Instrument Operating Conditions’’; Table 3.7–4, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature System Initiation Limits Instrument Setting’’; Table 4.1–1, ‘‘Minimum Frequencies for Check, Calibrations and Test of Instrument Channels’’; and add new TS Action 27 Table Notation to Tables 3.7–2 and 3.7–3, ‘‘Instrument Operating Conditions for Isolation Functions.’’ The negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function provides detection and isolation of one or two open phases (i.e., an open phase condition) on a TS required offsite primary (preferred) power source and initiates transfer to the onsite emergency power source (i.e., the emergency diesel generators (EDGs)). 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 change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change adds operability requirements, required actions, instrument settings, and surveillance requirements for the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function associated with the 4160V emergency buses. This system provides an additional level of undervoltage protection for Class 1E electrical equipment. The proposed change will promote reliability of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection circuitry in the performance of its design function of detecting and mitigating an open phase condition (OPC) on a required off-site primary power source and initiating transfer to the onsite emergency power source. The new negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function will further ensure the normally operating Class 1E motors/equipment, which are powered from the Class 1E buses, are appropriately isolated from a primary off-site power source experiencing a consequential OPC and will not be damaged. The addition of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function will continue to allow the existing undervoltage protection circuitry to function as originally designed (i.e., degraded and loss of voltage protection will remain in place and be unaffected by this change). The proposed change does not affect the probability of any accident resulting in a loss of voltage or degraded voltage condition on the Class 1E electrical buses and will enhance station response to mitigating the consequences of PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 accidents previously evaluated as this change further ensures continued operation of Class 1E equipment throughout accident scenarios. Specific models and analyses were performed and demonstrated that the proposed negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function, with the specified operability requirements, required actions, instrument settings, and surveillance requirements, will ensure the Class 1E system will be isolated from the off-site power source should a consequential OPC occur. The Class 1E motors will be subsequently sequenced back onto the Class 1E buses powered by the EDGs and will therefore not be damaged in the event of a consequential OPC under both accident and non-accident conditions. Therefore, the Class 1E loads will be available to perform their design basis functions should a loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) occur concurrent with a loss-of-off-site power (LOOP) following an OPC. The loading sequence (i.e., timing) of Class 1E equipment back onto the ESF [engineered safety feature] bus, powered by the EDG, is within the existing degraded voltage time delay. The addition of the new negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function will have no impact on accident initiators or precursors and does not alter the accident analysis assumptions. Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not alter the requirements for the availability of the 4160V emergency buses during accident conditions. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with those assumptions. The addition of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function TS enhances the ability of plant operators to identify and respond to an OPC in an off-site, primary power source, thereby ensuring the station electric distribution system will perform its intended safety function as designed. The proposed TS change will promote negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function performance reliability in a manner similar to the existing loss of voltage and degraded voltage protective circuitry. The proposed change does not result in the creation of any new accident precursors; does not result in changes to any existing accident scenarios, and does not introduce any operational changes or mechanisms that would create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. A failure mode and effects review was completed for postulated failure mechanisms of the new negative sequence voltage protection function and concluded that the addition of this protection function would not affect the existing loss of voltage and degraded voltage protection schemes; would not affect the number of occurrences of degraded voltage conditions that would cause the actuation of the existing Loss of Voltage, Degraded E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices Voltage or negative sequence voltage protection relays; would not affect the failure rate of the existing protection relays; and would not impact the assumptions in any existing accident scenario. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change enhances the ability of the plant to identify and isolate (an) open phase(s) in an off-site, primary power source and transfer the power source for the 4160V emergency buses to the onsite emergency power system. The proposed change does not affect the dose analysis acceptance criteria, does not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design basis, and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. With the addition of the new negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function, the capability of Class 1E equipment to perform its safety function will be further assured and the equipment will remain capable of mitigating the consequences of previously analyzed accidents while maintaining the existing margin to safety currently assumed in the accident analyses. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission’s related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ section of this document. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources— Operating,’’ to allow greater flexibility in performing Surveillance Requirements (SRs) by modifying Mode restriction notes in TS SRs 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, 3.8.1.19, 3.8.4.8, and 3.8.4.9. These proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–283– A, Revision 3, ‘‘Modify Section 3.8 Mode Restriction Notes.’’ Date of issuance: September 8, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 292 (Unit 1) and 288 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17178A234; 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: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR 19101). PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47041 The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.2, ‘‘Core Reactivity,’’ to revise the Completion Times of Required Action A.1 and A.2 from 72 hours to 7 days. This proposed change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–142–A, Revision 0, ‘‘Increase the Completion Time when the Core Reactivity Balance is Not Within Limit.’’ Date of issuance: September 8, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 297 (Unit 1) and 276 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17207A284; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23618). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ‘‘Containment Isolation Valves,’’ to add a Note to TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.6.3 Required Actions A.2, C.2, and E.2 to allow isolation devices that are locked, sealed, or otherwise secured to be verified by use of administrative means. The changes are consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–269–A, Revision 2, ‘‘Allow administrative E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 47042 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES means of position verification for locked or sealed valves.’’ Date of issuance: September 18, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 298 (Unit 1) and 277 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17240A354; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23619). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ‘‘Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System,’’ to increase the time allowed for swapping charging pumps to one hour. Additionally, an existing note in the Applicability section of TS 3.4.12 was reworded and relocated to the Limiting Condition for Operation section of TS 3.4.12 as Note 2. These proposed changes were consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–285– A, Revision 1, ‘‘Charging Pump Swap LTOP Allowance.’’ Date of issuance: September 25, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 299 (Unit 1) and 278 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17244A102; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23620). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2017. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated May 26, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the note regarding applicability of the limiting condition for operation for CNP Technical Specification 3.9.3, ‘‘Containment Penetrations.’’ Date of issuance: September 21, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 337 (Unit No. 1) and 319 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17214A550; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82 FR 12133). The supplemental letter dated May 26, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa Date of amendment request: September 13, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated April 7, 2017, and June 19, 2017. Brief description of amendment: The amendment made changes to the DAEC Emergency Plan to revise the staffing and the augmentation times for certain emergency response organization positions. Date of issuance: September 21, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days. Amendment No.: 301. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Accession No. ML17220A026; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–49: The amendment made changes to the DAEC Emergency Plan. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83877). The supplemental letters dated April 7, 2017, and June 19, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), Rockingham County, New Hampshire Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. Lucie Plant (St. Lucie), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: March 30, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification requirements to operate ventilation systems with charcoal filters from 10 hours to 15 minutes in accordance with TSTF–522, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month.’’ Date of issuance: September 11, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos: 156 (Seabrook); 240 (St. Lucie, Unit No. 1) and 191 (St. Lucie, Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17219A556; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 86, DPR–67, and NPF–16: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23627). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request: October 25, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated June 21, 2017, and August 17, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Emergency Plan (E-Plan) for DCPP to adopt the Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI’s) revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes described in NEI 99–01, Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ November 2012. Revision 6 of NEI 99–01 has been endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013. The currently approved E-Plan and associated EALs for DCPP are based on the guidance established in NEI 99–01, Revision 4 (NUMARC/NESP–007), ‘‘Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,’’ January 2003, except for security-related EALs, which are based on the guidance established in NEI 99–01, Revision 5, ‘‘Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,’’ February 2008. Date of issuance: September 25, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 365 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 231 (Unit 1) and 233 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17212A379; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 80 and DPR–82: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87973). The supplemental letters dated June 21, 2017, and August 17, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated May 15, 2017, and June 30, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments add new Action Conditions (A, B, and C) to Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.9 that address an inoperable 600 Volt AC load center (LC) 1–2R. The amendments include appropriate Required Actions and associated Completion Times for an inoperable LC 1–2R. Appropriate corresponding changes were made to the remaining conditions to reflect these new conditions. Date of issuance: September 15, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and 210 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17205A020; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92872). The supplemental letters dated May 15, 2017, and June 30, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated June 15, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification 3.7.9, ‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),’’ to extend the completion time to restore one inoperable nuclear service cooling water (NSCW) basin transfer pump from 31 days to 46 days. Additionally, a new condition was added to address two inoperable NSCW basin transfer pumps. PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47043 Date of issuance: September 19, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 192 (Unit 1) and 175 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17213A133; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 9, 2017 (82 FR 21563). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated May 19, 2017. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.6.11.2 and 3.6.11.3 to modify the requirements for the total weight of stored ice, minimum weight of each ice basket, and average ice weight of sample baskets. The amendment also made conforming changes to TS Table SR 3.0.2–1. Date of issuance: September 14, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 14. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17215B037; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF– 96: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR 15388). The supplemental letter dated May 19, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 47044 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated May 18, 2017, and June 2, 2017. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specification (TS) requirements to reference and allow use of the NRCapproved core reload methodologies described in Westinghouse topical reports WCAP–16045–P–A, Revision 0, ‘‘Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON’’; WCAP– 16045–P–A, Addendum 1–A, Revision 0, ‘‘Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology’’; and WCAP–10965– P–A, Addendum 2–A, Revision 0, ‘‘Qualification of the New Pin Power Recovery Methodology,’’ for the Callaway Plant. Date of issuance: September 15, 2017. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 217. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17236A082; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–30: The amendment revised the Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR 162). The supplemental letters dated May 18, 2017, and June 2, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October 2017. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2017–21607 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 [Docket Nos. 52–040 and 52–041; NRC– 2009–0337] Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Combined license application; revised notice of hearing. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the uncontested portion of this proceeding regarding the application of Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) for combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two additional units (Units 6 and 7) at the Turkey Point site in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This mandatory hearing will concern safety and environmental matters relating to the requested COLs. DATES: The hearing will be held on December 12, 2017, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. For the schedule for submitting pre-filed documents and deadlines affecting Interested Government Participants, see Section V of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 52–040 and 52–041 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods: • NRC’s Electronic Hearing Docket: You may obtain publicly available documents related to this hearing online at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ regulatory/adjudicatory.html. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise McGovern, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, telephone: 301–415–0681; email: Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Commission hereby gives notice that, pursuant to Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), it will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the uncontested portion of this proceeding regarding FPL’s June 30, 2009, application for COLs under part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), to construct and operate two additional units (Units 6 and 7) at the Turkey Point site in Miami-Dade County, Florida (http:// www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/ turkey-point.html). The Commission had previously scheduled this hearing for February 9, 2017, and later, for October 5, 2017.1 This mandatory hearing will concern safety and environmental matters relating to the requested COLs, as more fully described below. Participants in the hearing are not to address any contested issues in their written filings or oral presentations. II. Evidentiary Uncontested Hearing The Commission will conduct this hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on December 12, 2017, at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The hearing on these issues will continue on subsequent days, if necessary. III. Presiding Officer The Commission is the presiding officer for this proceeding. IV. Matters To Be Considered The matter at issue in this proceeding is whether the review of the application by the Commission’s staff has been adequate to support the findings found in 10 CFR 52.97 and 10 CFR 51.107. Those findings that must be made for each COL are as follows: Issues Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended The Commission will determine whether (1) the applicable standards and requirements of the Act and the 1 See 81 FR 89,995 (Dec. 13, 2016) and 82 FR 34,995 (Jul. 27, 2017). E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47032-47044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21607]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0201]


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

[[Page 47033]]

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 September 12, 2017, to September 25, 2017. 
The last biweekly notice was published on September 26, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by November 9, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by December 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0201. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWFN-8-D36M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0201, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0201.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0201, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer

[[Page 47034]]

will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing 
will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later 
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition 
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the 
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and 
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, 
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, 
or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need 
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility 
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local 
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof 
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and

[[Page 47035]]

a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory 
documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). 
Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A 
filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted 
through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing 
must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-
Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email 
notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also 
distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the 
NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the 
Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the 
proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those 
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants 
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a 
digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that 
they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly-available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment, which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336, 
and 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London 
County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: June 15, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17171A232.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for Millstone Power Station, Unit 
Nos. 1, 2, and 3, by administratively changing the company name 
``Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.'' with ``Dominion Energy Nuclear 
Connecticut, Inc.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to each license is administrative in 
nature. DNC, which will be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear 
Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee authorized to operate 
and possess the units, and its functions, powers, resources and 
management will not change. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect accident initiators or precursors, and do not alter the 
design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant or the 
manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The ability of 
structures, systems, and components to perform their intended safety 
functions is not altered or prevented by the proposed changes, and 
the assumptions used in determining the radiological consequences of 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to each license is purely administrative 
in nature. The functions of the licensee will not change. These 
changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e., 
no new or different type of equipment will be installed), and 
installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different 
manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to each license is administrative in 
nature. DNC, which will be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear 
Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee authorized to operate 
and possess the units, and its functions will not change. The 
proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. There are no changes to setpoints at which 
protective actions are

[[Page 47036]]

initiated, and the operability requirements for equipment assumed to 
operate for accident mitigation are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Energy, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198F072.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for ANO-1 and would establish a new 
Completion Time in ANO-1 TS 3.7.5, ``Emergency Feedwater (EFW) 
System,'' where one steam supply to the turbine driven EFW pump is 
inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor-driven EFW train. The 
amendment would also establish changes to the TSs that establish 
specific Actions: (1) For when the motor driven EFW train is inoperable 
at the same time and; (2) for when the turbine-driven EFW train is 
inoperable either (a) due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or (b) 
due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply.
    The amendment request was submitted in accordance with NRC-approved 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision 
3, ``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW 
[Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump Inoperable,'' with certain plant-
specific deviations identified in the application. The availability of 
this TS improvement was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 
2007 (72 FR 39089), as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process (CLIIP).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee affirmed 
the applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration 
determination, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) System is not an 
initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the 
proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed changes to address the condition 
of one or two motor driven AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine 
driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one steam supply inoperable 
do not change the response of the plant to any accidents.
    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 change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in 
which the AFW/EFW System provides plant protection. The AFW/EFW 
System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to 
remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the 
minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. There are no 
design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to 
the Conditions and Required Actions do not change any existing 
accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident 
scenarios.
    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. In addition, 
the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or 
eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant 
operating practice.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not 
result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design 
basis.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, 
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East, 
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198F356.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) for ANO-2 by establishing Actions and 
Allowable Outage Times in TS 3.7.1.2, ``Emergency Feedwater [EFW] 
System,'' for several combinations of inoperable EFW trains, consistent 
with NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion 
Engineering Plants,'' Revision 4. Revision 4 of NUREG-1432 includes 
changes incorporated by Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-340, 
Revision 3, ``Allow 7 Day Completion Time for a Turbine-Driven AFW 
[Auxiliary Feedwater] Pump Inoperable,'' and TSTF-412, Revision 3, 
``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump 
Inoperable.'' Certain proposed deviations from the NUREG-1432, Revision 
4, TS changes are identified in the application.
    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.

[[Page 47037]]

    The proposed changes clarify the operability requirements of the 
EFW system and provide appropriate remedial actions to be performed 
respective to potential EFW configurations or out-of-service 
periods, consistent with the STS [standard technical 
specifications]. The EFW system is not an initiator of any design 
basis accident or event and, therefore, the proposed changes do not 
increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The 
EFW system is used to respond to accidents previously evaluated. The 
proposed change affects only the actions taken when portions of the 
EFW system are unavailable and does not affect the design of the EFW 
system.
    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, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in 
which the EFW system provides plant protection. The EFW system will 
continue to supply water to the Steam Generators (SGs) to remove 
decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the 
minimum required flow rate to the SGs. There are no design changes 
associated with the proposed changes. The changes to the related TS 
Actions do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create 
any new or different accident scenarios.
    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. In addition, 
the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or 
eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not 
result in continued plant operation in a configuration outside the 
design basis.
    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: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, 
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East, 
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: August 30, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17242A211.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Oyster Creek Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16, Section 
2.C, License Condition (5) by replacing Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) 
Vessel and Internals Project technical report BWRVIP-18, Revision 0, as 
approved by NRC staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report dated December 
2, 1999, with the latest BWRVIP-18 revision approved on December 21, 
2016.
    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 change to the License Condition 2.C.(5) 
requirements for inspection of Core Spray spargers, piping and 
associated components does not alter the use of the inspection 
methods and criteria used to determine the capability of the Core 
Spray System to perform its intended safety function that have been 
previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed change is 
in accordance with an NRC approved inspection and flaw evaluation 
guideline and as such, maintains required safety margins. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or 
precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained.
    The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their 
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating 
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does 
not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it 
require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed 
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
resultant consequences.
    Incorporating NRG-approved inspection frequency and criteria for 
Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components has no 
physical effect on plant equipment and therefore, no impact on the 
course of plant transients.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 incorporation of NRC-approved inspection frequency 
and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping and associated 
components is a change based upon previously approved documents and 
does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating 
characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being 
introduced. There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes 
in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. 
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single 
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
    The proposed change does not introduce any new accident 
precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or 
changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, and through the 
parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of 
equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis 
accidents. The use of inspection frequency and criteria for Core 
Spray spargers, piping and associated components in accordance with 
NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and criteria provides adequate 
assurance that the Core Spray System can perform its safety function 
as required by the plant-specific [loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)]-
analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not decrease the 
margin of safety. The proposed change in inspection criteria 
maintains the current safety margin, which protects the fuel

[[Page 47038]]

cladding integrity during a postulated LOCA event, but does not 
change the requirements governing operation or availability of 
safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of 
safety. The change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment, 
which remains unchanged.
    The proposed change to License Condition 2.C.(5) is consistent 
with NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and criteria and provides 
adequate assurance that the Core Spray System can perform its safety 
function as required by the plant-specific LOCA-analysis. No 
setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are altered by 
the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the manner 
in which the safety limits are determined. This change is consistent 
with plant design and does not change the Technical Specification 
operability requirements; thus, previously evaluated accidents are 
not affected by this proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
    Date of amendment request: July 28, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17212A034.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
direct current (DC) battery Technical Specifications 3.8.2.1, 3.8.2.2, 
3.8.3.1, and 3.8.3.2 such that a DC electrical train is operable with 
one 100 percent capacity battery aligned to both DC buses in the 
associated electrical train. The amendment also proposes to remove a 
footnote to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.1 associated with DC battery 
checks.
    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 technical specification (TS) limiting conditions for 
operation and required actions associated with the proposed changes 
to the TS are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated, 
so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected 
by the proposed changes. The proposed change does not alter the 
design, function, or operation of any plant structure, system, or 
component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS-required SSC to 
perform its specified safety function is not impacted by the 
proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of accidents previously 
evaluated are unaffected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or 
performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is 
installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, 
physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC.
    No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal 
mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS 
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or 
performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is 
installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, 
physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No 
physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms 
are introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do 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 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety 
function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes 
do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. 
The changes do not adversely affect plant operating margins or the 
reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. With the 
proposed change, each DC electrical trains remains fully capable of 
performing its safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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 Blair, Managing Attorney, Florida 
Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-
425, 52-025, and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1, 2, 
3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of Dalton, 
Georgia
    Date of amendment request: August 30, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A202.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate the 
emergency operations facility for the eight units of the SNC nuclear 
fleet from the SNC corporate headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama, to a 
new location 1.3 miles away.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to relocate the consolidated EOF [emergency 
operations facility] within Birmingham, Alabama, requires no change 
to the required staff response time for supplementing onsite 
personnel in response to a radiological emergency. The relocated EOF 
is along the same major roadway and response personnel will be able 
to access the facility, using for the most part, the same path they 
currently use to travel to the corporate office. The license 
amendment does not request a change to the response time and the 
facility will be functional within the same timeframe as for the 
existing EOF. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF 
will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The 
proposed change has no effect on normal plant operation or on any 
accident initiator or precursors and does not impact the function of 
plant structures, systems, or components [(SSCs)]. The proposed 
change does not alter or prevent the ability of the emergency 
response organization to perform its intended functions to mitigate 
the consequences of an accident or event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the

[[Page 47039]]

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change only concerns implementation of the standard 
emergency plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance (1.3 
miles) from its current location. The new location will not change 
the time the facility will be functional to provide emergency 
response. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will 
continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The 
proposed change will not change the design function or operation of 
SSCs. The change does not impact the accident analysis for any of 
the SNC nuclear plants. The change does not involve a physical 
alteration of any of the plants, a change in the method of plant 
operation, or new operator actions. The proposed change does not 
introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the 
change does not alter assumptions made in safety analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change only impacts the implementation of the 
emergency plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance (1.3 
miles) within Birmingham, Alabama. The change does not the affect 
staff response time or the time it takes to make the facility 
operational to perform its intended emergency response functions. 
The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will continue to 
meet the applicable regulatory requirements. Margin of safety is 
associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product 
barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure 
boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation 
dose to the public. The proposed change is associated with the 
emergency plan and does not impact operation of the plant or its 
response to transients or accidents. The change does not affect 
Technical Specifications. The change does not involve a change in 
the method of plant operation, and accident analyses will not be 
affected by the proposed change. Safety analyses acceptance criteria 
are not affected. The standard emergency plan and the plant annexes 
will continue to provide the required response staff for performing 
major tasks for the functional areas of the emergency plans.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A088.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendments propose 
to depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Document by proposing 
changes to the combined license (COL) and the COL Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications. Specifically, the amendments, if approved, would revise 
the COL documents mentioned previously to reflect the proposed changes 
to the reactor coolant system and main steam line leakage detection 
systems for detection of leakage at all times and consideration of 
instrument sensitivities not accounted for.
    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, with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The [reactor coolant system (RCS)] leakage detection systems 
provide early warning of abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant 
pressure boundary (RCPB) or the main steam lines inside containment 
so that actions can be taken to prevent pipe breaks. The change 
proposed to limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.4.9 adds 
limited periods during which the containment sump level and/or 
containment atmosphere F18 particulate monitor are not required to 
be operable--during and for 2 hours after use of the containment 
purge flow path, and during in-containment refueling water storage 
tank (IRWST) gutter drain isolation valve closure and for 2 hours 
after reopening the valves--and proposes a compensatory increase in 
the frequency of the RCS inventory balance during these periods. 
Containment purge, containment venting and IRWST gutter drain 
isolation valve closure are evolutions associated with normal 
operating conditions. The probability of a leakage flaw growing to a 
size that would cause pipe failure during and for 2 hours after 
IRWST gutter drain isolation valve inservice testing or a 
containment venting evolution is low because the durations of the 
test and venting evolution are short. The probability of a leakage 
flaw growing to a size that would cause pipe failure during and for 
2 hours after a containment purge operation is low because 
containment purge operations at power are infrequent, and because 
containment purge in preparation for refueling is conducted 
concurrent with operations that will put the plant in operating 
modes for which LCO 3.4.9 is not applicable (MODES 5 and 6).
    The RCS inventory balance method of leak detection is 
quantitative and remains available when the plant has been operating 
at steady state for at least 12 hours and the leakage 
instrumentation is not required to be operable. In addition, the 
leak detection instruments will remain functional and have 
sensitivities such that the instrumentation will still be useful as 
a leak detection aid to operators during a containment purge 
operation or IRWST gutter drain isolation valve inservice testing. 
The RCS leakage detection instrumentation is not credited with 
consequence mitigation during any accident previously evaluated.
    Existing Required Action A.1 is intended to determine whether 
the remaining required containment sump level instrument is 
functioning properly when one of the required instruments is 
inoperable. Removal of Required Action A.1 does not increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
because a new Surveillance Requirement is proposed which will 
provide more appropriate monitoring to assess operability of the 
remaining required containment sump level channel.
    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 failure of the leak detection systems to detect small leaks 
in the reactor coolant pressure boundary could lead to large 
undetected leaks and possibly a loss of coolant accident. Loss of 
coolant accidents for a spectrum of pipe sizes and locations are 
already postulated in [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] 
Chapter 15, Section 15.6. Breaks in the main steam lines inside 
containment are also analyzed in UFSAR Chapter 15, Section 15.1. 
Unidentified leakage detection and operator action in response to 
unidentified leakage are not postulated for any of the design basis 
accident analyses described in UFSAR Chapter 15.
    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 amendment does not reduce RCS leakage detection 
instrument availability with respect to IRWST gutter drain isolation 
valve closure or reactor power level. The changes to compensate for 
instrument sensitivities during containment purge

[[Page 47040]]

operation do not represent a significant portion of the expected 
operating time in MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. The containment purge 
isolation valves are opened temporarily during plant startup to 
relieve containment pressure increase due to thermal expansion. 
Containment purge during power operation may be required to support 
containment entry--which is infrequent. The containment purge flow 
paths are also used for venting the containment atmosphere to 
control containment pressure differential as weather changes affect 
ambient pressure. When the containment purge system is not being 
used to support personnel access into containment or to control the 
containment atmospheric pressure, the containment air filtration 
system containment isolation valves are maintained in their normally 
closed position. The IRWST gutter drain isolation valves are cycled 
quarterly, but are normally maintained in the open position. 
Therefore, use of the containment purge flow paths and closure of 
the IRWST gutter drain isolation valves do not represent a 
significant portion of the time in power operation. In addition, the 
action to perform a RCS inventory balance on a greater frequency 
during these evolutions will provide more appropriate monitoring to 
assess operability of the leak detection instrumentation. Therefore, 
the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    Removing existing Required Action A.1 and adding surveillance of 
the containment sump level channels does not significantly decrease 
the margin of safety. The prescribed Action did not provide 
definitive information about instrument performance or operability. 
The new Surveillance Requirement proposed will provide a history of 
the operational performance of the containment sump level 
instrumentation that will better assist in the determination of 
instrument operability.
    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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: May 23, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17150A302.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would add 
operability requirements, required actions, instrument settings, and 
surveillance requirements to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the 
4160 volt (V) emergency bus negative sequence voltage (open phase) 
protection function. Specifically, the proposed amendments would revise 
TS Table 3.7-2, ``Engineered Safeguards Action, Instrument Operating 
Conditions''; Table 3.7-4, ``Engineered Safety Feature System 
Initiation Limits Instrument Setting''; Table 4.1-1, ``Minimum 
Frequencies for Check, Calibrations and Test of Instrument Channels''; 
and add new TS Action 27 Table Notation to Tables 3.7-2 and 3.7-3, 
``Instrument Operating Conditions for Isolation Functions.'' The 
negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function provides 
detection and isolation of one or two open phases (i.e., an open phase 
condition) on a TS required offsite primary (preferred) power source 
and initiates transfer to the onsite emergency power source (i.e., the 
emergency diesel generators (EDGs)).
    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 change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds operability requirements, required 
actions, instrument settings, and surveillance requirements for the 
negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function 
associated with the 4160V emergency buses. This system provides an 
additional level of undervoltage protection for Class 1E electrical 
equipment. The proposed change will promote reliability of the 
negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection circuitry in the 
performance of its design function of detecting and mitigating an 
open phase condition (OPC) on a required off-site primary power 
source and initiating transfer to the onsite emergency power source.
    The new negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection 
function will further ensure the normally operating Class 1E motors/
equipment, which are powered from the Class 1E buses, are 
appropriately isolated from a primary off-site power source 
experiencing a consequential OPC and will not be damaged. The 
addition of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection 
function will continue to allow the existing undervoltage protection 
circuitry to function as originally designed (i.e., degraded and 
loss of voltage protection will remain in place and be unaffected by 
this change). The proposed change does not affect the probability of 
any accident resulting in a loss of voltage or degraded voltage 
condition on the Class 1E electrical buses and will enhance station 
response to mitigating the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated as this change further ensures continued operation of 
Class 1E equipment throughout accident scenarios.
    Specific models and analyses were performed and demonstrated 
that the proposed negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection 
function, with the specified operability requirements, required 
actions, instrument settings, and surveillance requirements, will 
ensure the Class 1E system will be isolated from the off-site power 
source should a consequential OPC occur. The Class 1E motors will be 
subsequently sequenced back onto the Class 1E buses powered by the 
EDGs and will therefore not be damaged in the event of a 
consequential OPC under both accident and non-accident conditions. 
Therefore, the Class 1E loads will be available to perform their 
design basis functions should a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 
occur concurrent with a loss-of-off-site power (LOOP) following an 
OPC. The loading sequence (i.e., timing) of Class 1E equipment back 
onto the ESF [engineered safety feature] bus, powered by the EDG, is 
within the existing degraded voltage time delay.
    The addition of the new negative sequence voltage (open phase) 
protection function will have no impact on accident initiators or 
precursors and does not alter the accident analysis assumptions.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the requirements for the 
availability of the 4160V emergency buses during accident 
conditions. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis and is consistent with those assumptions. The 
addition of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection 
function TS enhances the ability of plant operators to identify and 
respond to an OPC in an off-site, primary power source, thereby 
ensuring the station electric distribution system will perform its 
intended safety function as designed. The proposed TS change will 
promote negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function 
performance reliability in a manner similar to the existing loss of 
voltage and degraded voltage protective circuitry.
    The proposed change does not result in the creation of any new 
accident precursors; does not result in changes to any existing 
accident scenarios, and does not introduce any operational changes 
or mechanisms that would create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident. A failure mode and effects review was 
completed for postulated failure mechanisms of the new negative 
sequence voltage protection function and concluded that the addition 
of this protection function would not affect the existing loss of 
voltage and degraded voltage protection schemes; would not affect 
the number of occurrences of degraded voltage conditions that would 
cause the actuation of the existing Loss of Voltage, Degraded

[[Page 47041]]

Voltage or negative sequence voltage protection relays; would not 
affect the failure rate of the existing protection relays; and would 
not impact the assumptions in any existing accident scenario.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change enhances the ability of the plant to 
identify and isolate (an) open phase(s) in an off-site, primary 
power source and transfer the power source for the 4160V emergency 
buses to the onsite emergency power system. The proposed change does 
not affect the dose analysis acceptance criteria, does not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design 
basis, and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition.
    With the addition of the new negative sequence voltage (open 
phase) protection function, the capability of Class 1E equipment to 
perform its safety function will be further assured and the 
equipment will remain capable of mitigating the consequences of 
previously analyzed accidents while maintaining the existing margin 
to safety currently assumed in the accident analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed TS 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

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

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: December 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to allow greater 
flexibility in performing Surveillance Requirements (SRs) by modifying 
Mode restriction notes in TS SRs 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, 
3.8.1.19, 3.8.4.8, and 3.8.4.9. These proposed changes are consistent 
with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-283-A, 
Revision 3, ``Modify Section 3.8 Mode Restriction Notes.''
    Date of issuance: September 8, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 292 (Unit 1) and 288 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17178A234; 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: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR 
19101).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.1.2, ``Core Reactivity,'' to revise the Completion 
Times of Required Action A.1 and A.2 from 72 hours to 7 days. This 
proposed change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-142-A, Revision 0, 
``Increase the Completion Time when the Core Reactivity Balance is Not 
Within Limit.''
    Date of issuance: September 8, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 297 (Unit 1) and 276 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17207A284; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23618).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' to add a 
Note to TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.6.3 Required Actions A.2, 
C.2, and E.2 to allow isolation devices that are locked, sealed, or 
otherwise secured to be verified by use of administrative means. The 
changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-269-A, Revision 2, ``Allow administrative

[[Page 47042]]

means of position verification for locked or sealed valves.''
    Date of issuance: September 18, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 298 (Unit 1) and 277 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17240A354; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23619).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection 
(LTOP) System,'' to increase the time allowed for swapping charging 
pumps to one hour. Additionally, an existing note in the Applicability 
section of TS 3.4.12 was reworded and relocated to the Limiting 
Condition for Operation section of TS 3.4.12 as Note 2. These proposed 
changes were consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-285-A, Revision 1, ``Charging Pump Swap LTOP 
Allowance.''
    Date of issuance: September 25, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 299 (Unit 1) and 278 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17244A102; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23620).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 26, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the note 
regarding applicability of the limiting condition for operation for CNP 
Technical Specification 3.9.3, ``Containment Penetrations.''
    Date of issuance: September 21, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 337 (Unit No. 1) and 319 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17214A550; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82 
FR 12133). The supplemental letter dated May 26, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: September 13, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 7, 2017, and June 19, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment made changes to the 
DAEC Emergency Plan to revise the staffing and the augmentation times 
for certain emergency response organization positions.
    Date of issuance: September 21, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days.
    Amendment No.: 301. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17220A026; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment made 
changes to the DAEC Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81 
FR 83877). The supplemental letters dated April 7, 2017, and June 19, 
2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: March 30, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification requirements to operate ventilation systems with charcoal 
filters from 10 hours to 15 minutes in accordance with TSTF-522, 
Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to 
Operate for 10 hours per Month.''
    Date of issuance: September 11, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 156 (Seabrook); 240 (St. Lucie, Unit No. 1) and 191 
(St. Lucie, Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17219A556; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-86, DPR-67, and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23627).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 47043]]

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

    Date of amendment request: October 25, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 21, 2017, and August 17, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Emergency Plan (E-Plan) for DCPP to adopt the Nuclear Energy 
Institute's (NEI's) revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes 
described in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action 
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012. Revision 6 of NEI 99-
01 has been endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013. The 
currently approved E-Plan and associated EALs for DCPP are based on the 
guidance established in NEI 99-01, Revision 4 (NUMARC/NESP-007), 
``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' January 
2003, except for security-related EALs, which are based on the guidance 
established in NEI 99-01, Revision 5, ``Methodology for Development of 
Emergency Action Levels,'' February 2008.
    Date of issuance: September 25, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 365 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 231 (Unit 1) and 233 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17212A379; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 
87973). The supplemental letters dated June 21, 2017, and August 17, 
2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 15, 2017, and June 30, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments add new Action 
Conditions (A, B, and C) to Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.9 that 
address an inoperable 600 Volt AC load center (LC) 1-2R. The amendments 
include appropriate Required Actions and associated Completion Times 
for an inoperable LC 1-2R. Appropriate corresponding changes were made 
to the remaining conditions to reflect these new conditions.
    Date of issuance: September 15, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and 210 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17205A020; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 20, 2016 (81 
FR 92872). The supplemental letters dated May 15, 2017, and June 30, 
2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 15, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' to extend the 
completion time to restore one inoperable nuclear service cooling water 
(NSCW) basin transfer pump from 31 days to 46 days. Additionally, a new 
condition was added to address two inoperable NSCW basin transfer 
pumps.
    Date of issuance: September 19, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 192 (Unit 1) and 175 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17213A133; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 9, 2017 (82 FR 
21563).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 19, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.6.11.2 and 
3.6.11.3 to modify the requirements for the total weight of stored ice, 
minimum weight of each ice basket, and average ice weight of sample 
baskets. The amendment also made conforming changes to TS Table SR 
3.0.2-1.
    Date of issuance: September 14, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 14. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17215B037; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR 
15388). The supplemental letter dated May 19, 2017, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 47044]]

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 18, 2017, and June 2, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements to reference and allow use of the NRC-
approved core reload methodologies described in Westinghouse topical 
reports WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, ``Qualification of the Two-
Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON''; WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A, 
Revision 0, ``Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology''; 
and WCAP-10965-P-A, Addendum 2-A, Revision 0, ``Qualification of the 
New Pin Power Recovery Methodology,'' for the Callaway Plant.
    Date of issuance: September 15, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 217. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17236A082; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment 
revised the Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR 
162). The supplemental letters dated May 18, 2017, and June 2, 2017, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-21607 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P