Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 51646-51655 [2017-23749]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51646-51655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23749]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0212]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from October 7 to October 23, 2017. The last 
biweekly notice was published on October 24, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by December 7, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by January 8, 2018.

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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0212. 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: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: OWFN-2-A13, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly A. Clayton, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
3475, email: beverly.clayton@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0212, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0212.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     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-2017-0212, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit

[[Page 51647]]

comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 51648]]

The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be 
filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic 
Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the 
requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 
10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally 
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the 
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located 
within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, 
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as 
a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's 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

[[Page 51649]]

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.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan
    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A422.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
replace existing technical specifications (TS) requirements related to 
``operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel'' 
(OPDRVs) with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water 
inventory control (RPV WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3, which 
requires reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of 
active irradiated fuel.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

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

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of amendment request: July 25, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17206A543.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would delete the 
Note associated with Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.2 to reflect the 
Residual Heat Removal system's design, and ensure that the system's 
operation is consistent with the limiting condition for operation 
requirements in Technical Specification 3.5.1, ``ECCS [Emergency Core 
Cooling System]--Operating.''

[[Page 51650]]

    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.
    No physical changes to the facility will occur as a result of 
this proposed amendment. The proposed change will not alter the 
physical design. The current Technical Specification Note could make 
Columbia susceptible to potential water hammer in the Residual Heat 
Removal system if in the Shutdown Cooling Mode of Residual Heat 
Removal in Mode 3 when swapping from the Shutdown Cooling to Low 
Pressure Core Injection mode of Residual Heat Removal system. The 
proposed License Amendment Request will eliminate the risk for 
cavitation of the pump and voiding in the suction piping, thereby 
avoiding potential to damage the Residual Heat Removal system, 
including water hammer.
    Therefore there is no 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 analyzed?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety 
limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation 
of the plant. Accordingly, the change does not introduce any new 
accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the 
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform 
their safety function. Deletion of the Technical Specification Note 
is appropriate because current Technical Specification could put the 
plant at risk for potential cavitation of the pump and voiding in 
the suction piping, resulting in potential to damage the Residual 
Heat Removal system, including water hammer.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety 
limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation 
of the plant. Accordingly, the change does not introduce any new 
accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the 
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform 
their safety function. Deletion of the Technical Specification Note 
is appropriate because current Technical Specification could put the 
plant at risk for potential cavitation of the pump and voiding in 
the suction piping, resulting in potential to damage the Residual 
Heat Removal system, including water hammer.
    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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: March 30, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 17, 2017. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML17089A380 and ML17290A342, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The license amendment request was 
originally noticed in the Federal Register on May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23623). The notice is being reissued in its entirety to include the 
revised scope, description of the amendment request, and proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination. The proposed amendment 
would revise the PNP Cyber Security Plan Milestone 8 full 
implementation date from December 15, 2017, to March 31, 2019.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the CSP [Cyber Security Plan] 
implementation schedule is administrative in nature. This change 
does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed change does not require any plant modifications which 
affect the performance capability of the structures, system, and 
components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    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 to the CSP implementation schedule is 
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed changes to 
the CSP implementation schedule is administrative in nature. In 
addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the 
CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken 
which provide adequate protection during this period of time. 
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result 
of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William Glew, Associate General Counsel--
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick 
Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: September 14, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17257A193.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

[[Page 51651]]

Technical Specifications (TSs) to address secondary containment 
personnel access door openings.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change addresses conditions during which the 
secondary containment SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.6.4.1.3 is not 
met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes 
are no different than the consequences of an accident while 
utilizing the existing four-hour Completion Time for an inoperable 
secondary containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    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 change does not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change would provide an allowance for brief, 
inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment 
personnel access doors during normal entry and exit conditions. The 
allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment access 
door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not 
significantly impact the ability to maintain the required secondary 
containment vacuum as the doors are promptly closed after entry or 
exit, thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary. In 
addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening and closing of 
redundant secondary containment personnel access doors during entry 
and exit conditions does not significantly impact the ability of the 
Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System to maintain the required 
secondary containment vacuum. Therefore, the safety function of the 
secondary containment is 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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305, 
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
    Date of amendment request: August 11, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17227A172.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments change 
the respective technical specifications (TSs) as follows:
    The proposed changes revise Section 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' and 
Section 3.0, ``LCO Applicability'' of the TSs to clarify the use and 
application of the TS usage rules, as described below:
     Section 1.3 is revised to clarify ``discovery'' and to 
discuss exceptions to starting the Completion Time at condition entry.
     Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4.b is revised 
to clarify that LCO 3.0.4.a, LCO 3.0.4.b, and LCO 3.0.4.c are 
independent options.
     Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.3 is revised to allow 
application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not been previously performed 
and to clarify the application of SR 3.0.3.
    The proposed changes to the TSs are consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF-529), Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and 
Application Rules.'' The NRC staff issued a safety evaluation for TSTF-
529 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16060A440) provided to the Technical 
Specifications Task Force in a letter dated April 21, 2016 (ADAMS 
Package Accession No. ML16060A441). This review included a review of 
the NRC staff's evaluation, as well as the information provided in 
TSTF-529. The NRC letter dated April 21, 2016, included the model 
application, No Significant Hazards Consideration (NSHC) Determination, 
and the model safety evaluation for referencing in license amendment 
applications. The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC 
determination in its application dated August 11, 2017, which is 
presented below.
    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, along with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect 
on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on 
the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3 
states that the allowance may only be used when there is a 
reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed. 
Since the proposed change does not significantly affect system 
Operability, the proposed change will have no significant effect on 
the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will 
have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate 
accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the 
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does 
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the 
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and 
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not 
been previously performed if there is reasonable expectation that 
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3 
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing

[[Page 51652]]

its safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or 
unaffected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail 
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17254A495.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the technical specification (TS) requirements in TS 3.3.6.1, 
``Primary Containment and Drywell Isolation Instrumentation,'' by 
adding an Actions note allowing intermittent opening, under 
administrative control, of penetration flow paths that are isolated. 
The proposed change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-306-A, Revision 2, ``Add 
Action to [Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)] 3.3.6.1 to Give 
Option to Isolate the Penetration.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to adopt TSTF-306-A allows primary 
containment and drywell isolation valves to be unisolated under 
administrative controls when the associated isolation 
instrumentation is not operable. The isolation function is an 
accident mitigating function and is not an initiator of an accident 
previously evaluated. Administrative controls are required to be in 
effect when the valves are unisolated so that the penetration can be 
rapidly isolated when the need is indicated.
    The addition of the note that the penetration flow paths may be 
unisolated under administrative control provides consistency and 
clarification with the intermittent opening allowances contained in 
LCO 3.6.1.3, ``Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs),'' and 
LCO 3.6.5.3, ``Drywell Isolation Valves,'' allowed elsewhere in the 
Technical Specifications (TS).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to 
plant equipment and does not change the method by which any safety-
related system performs its function. The Perry Nuclear Power Plant 
TS currently allow containment and drywell isolation valves to be 
open under administrative control after being closed to comply with 
TS ACTIONS for inoperable valves.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect the operation of plant 
equipment or the function of any equipment assumed in the accident 
analysis. The allowance to unisolate a penetration flow path will 
not have a significant effect on the margin of safety because the 
penetration flow path can be isolated manually, if needed. This 
change simply provides consistency with what is already allowed 
elsewhere in the TSs. There are no changes being made to safety 
analysis assumptions or results. When the valves are unisolated, the 
design basis function of containment isolation is maintained by 
administrative controls.
    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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: September 14, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17257A300.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications related to inoperable Auxiliary Feedwater pump 
steam supply.
    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 Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) 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 
inoperable AFW pump due to an inoperable steam supply or one 
inoperable AFW pump due to an inoperable steam supply concurrent 
with one inoperable motor-driven AFW pump 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, facility operation in accordance with the proposed 
license amendments would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed 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 system provides plant protection. The AFW 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. There are no design changes associated with the 
proposed changes. The changes to the required actions and completion 
times 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

[[Page 51653]]

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 proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed 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, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/
JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California
    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17271A090.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group Alignment Limits''; 
3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits''; 3.1.6, ``Control Rod 
Insertion Limits''; and 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication,'' to adopt 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-547, Revision 
1, ``Clarification of Rod Position Requirements (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML15365A610). The NRC staff approved the TSTF and issued an associated 
model safety evaluation by letter dated March 4, 2016 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML16012A126).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to 
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits 
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the 
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits 
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion 
profile.
    Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents 
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does 
not change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods or 
make any technical changes to the Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) governing the rods. Therefore, the 
proposed change has no effect on the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod 
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident 
analysis as the proposed Actions require verification that SDM is 
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a 
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to 
be applicable.
    Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to frequent 
use of the moveable incore detector system or the Power Distribution 
Monitoring System to verify the position of rods with inoperable rod 
position indicator does not change the requirement for the rods to 
be aligned and within the insertion limits.
    Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously 
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the 
consequences.
    The proposed change to resolve the differences in the TS ensure 
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable. 
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the 
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the 
consequences.
    The proposed change to eliminate an unnecessary action has no 
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the 
analysis of those accidents did not consider the use of the action.
    The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no 
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the 
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing 
requirements and does not change the intent.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions 
for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the 
Surveillance Requirements governing the rods. The proposed change 
maintains or improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does 
not introduce new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different 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 to allow an alternative method of verifying 
rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual rod 
position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to 
repair rods that are operable but immovable does not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must 
be verified to be operable, and all other banks must be within the 
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the 
requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary 
actions do not affect the margin of safety as the changes do not 
affect the ability of the rods to perform their specified safety 
function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant

[[Page 51654]]

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.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: April 24, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised technical 
specification requirements regarding steam generator tube inspections 
and reporting as described in Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator 
Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection,'' using the 
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for ANO-1.
    Date of issuance: October 10, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 258. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17235A519; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 
31092).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 24, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised technical 
specification requirements regarding steam generator tube inspections 
and reporting as described in Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator 
Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection,'' using the 
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for ANO-2.
    Date of issuance: October 10, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 307. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17251A211; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 
31093).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company and FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Generation, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 20, 2017; September 7, 2017; and September 20, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Beaver 
Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, emergency action level (EAL) 
scheme to one based on Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) document NEI 99-
01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Level for Non-Passive 
Reactors,'' November 2012.
    Date of issuance: October 12, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 300 (Unit 1) and 189 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17216A570; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 20, 2016 (81 
FR 92868). The supplemental letters dated May 20, 2017; September 7, 
2017; and September 20, 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 October 12, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: January 11, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes Technical 
Specification 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protection System (RPS) 
Instrumentation'' for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, by 
modifying the format and by providing an alternative set of required 
actions, with longer completion times, to be used when the ultrasonic 
flow meter is out of service.
    Date of issuance: October 19, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 296. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17270A112; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safely Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: The amendment revised 
the renewed facility operating license and technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 
13665).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 19, 2017.

[[Page 51655]]

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: April 26, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the PNPP 
Environmental Protection Plan (Nonradiological) to clarify and enhance 
wording, to remove duplicative or outdated program information, and to 
relieve the burden of submitting unnecessary or duplicative information 
to the NRC.
    Date of issuance: October 19, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 178. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17257A098; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 
31097).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 19, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 2, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Renewed 
Facility Operating Licenses' ``Fire Protection'' license conditions. 
The changes incorporated new references into these license conditions 
that approved a revision to plant modifications previously approved in 
the March 31, 2016, NRC issuance of National Fire Protection 
Association Standard 805 license amendments (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML15344A346).
    Date of issuance: October 23, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 242 (Unit No. 1) and 193 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17248A379; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 
31098).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 23, 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: March 31, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the DAEC 
Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) in its Emergency 
Preparedness Plan. The DAEC Evacuation Time Estimates Study has also 
been revised to encompass the changes proposed to the DAEC Plume 
Exposure Pathway EPZ boundary.
    Date of issuance: October 18, 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. ML17212A646; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR 
26132).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 18, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 20, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 5, 2017, and July 21, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Gas Treatment System 
(ABGTS),'' to provide an action when both trains of the ABGTS are 
inoperable due to the auxiliary building secondary containment 
enclosure boundary being inoperable.
    Date of issuance: October 17, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 116 (Unit 1) and 16 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17236A057; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82 
FR 12137). The supplemental letters dated May 5, 2017, and July 21, 
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 October 17, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-23749 Filed 11-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P