Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 60223-60236 [2017-27087]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60223-60236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27087]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0232]


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 November 18, 2017, to December 4, 2017. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 5, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 18, 2018. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by February 20, 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 website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0232. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0232, 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 website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0232.
     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 [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0232, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

[[Page 60224]]

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 website 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. 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

[[Page 60225]]

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 website 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 [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website 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 website 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 website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 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

[[Page 60226]]

information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information 
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire), Mecklenburg County, North 
Carolina
    Date of amendment request: September 14, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17262A090.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow temporary changes to TSs 3.5.2, 
``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--Operating,'' 3.6.6, 
``Containment Spray System'' (CSS), 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) 
System,'' 3.7.6, ``Component Cooling Water (CCW) System,'' 3.7.7, 
``Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS),'' 3.7.9, ``Control Room Area 
Ventilation System (CRAVS),'' 3.7.11, ``Auxiliary Building Filtered 
Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES),'' and 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating 
Current] Sources--Operating,'' to permit the ``A'' Train NSWS to be 
inoperable for a total of 14 days to address a non-conforming condition 
on the ``A'' Train supply piping from the Standby Nuclear Service Water 
Pond (SNSWP).
    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 `B' Train NSWS and supported equipment will remain fully 
operable during the 14 day CT [completion time]. The alignment of 
the `A' Train NSWS will remain consistent with the NSWS normal and 
ESFAS [engineered safety features actuation system] alignment. 
Although not fully operable the `A' Train NSWS and its supported 
equipment will be capable of performing their functions during the 
14 day CT.
    The `A' NSWS and supported equipment function as accident 
mitigators. Removing `A' Train SNSWP supply piping from service for 
a limited period of time does not affect any accident initiator and 
therefore cannot change the probability of an accident. The proposed 
changes and the `A' Train NSWS repair evolution have been evaluated 
to assess their impact on the systems affected and ensure design 
basis safety functions are preserved.
    The risk analysis for the proposed [NSWS] alignment during the 
14 day CT shows no delta risk for any ESF [engineered safety 
feature] actuation event that does not involve an earthquake. The 
most significant risk contributor is a seismic event with a 
magnitude great enough to cause the failure of Cowan's Ford dam and 
subsequent loss of Lake Norman or LLI [low level intake] during the 
14 day CT. The estimated Incremental Conditional Core Damage 
Probability (ICCDP) due to the seismic event is much less than the 
limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
    In addition, as previously stated, a Seismic Fragility 
Assessment of the McGuire Low Level Intake Water Pipeline in 
December of 2011 indicates that the dam and water supply would 
withstand a SSE [safe shutdown earthquake]. Therefore for the short 
duration of this proposed alignment the increase in risk is deemed 
to be negligible.
    Risk associated with tornado/high winds was assessed. The months 
of November through February have been the seasonal low for tornado 
frequency. This evolution is currently scheduled for the spring 
February 2018 time frame. The risk contribution from tornado and 
high wind events is negligible during the proposed NSWS 
configuration described in this LAR [license amendment request] and 
therefore, the calculated Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or the Large 
Early Release [Frequency] (LERF) contribution due to high wind and 
tornado events is negligible with respect to overall risk. The 
activities covered by this LAR also include a defense-in-depth 
action to cease activities and close the personnel access opening in 
the event of a tornado warning. Weather patterns will be monitored 
and this activity will be modified if tornado/high wind conditions 
become imminent.
    The overall increase in risk for the 14 day CT is solely due to 
the seismic event which results in a loss of Lake Norman or LLI. 
However, this risk is reduced by the defense in depth strategy 
described in the LAR that provides a contingency for the loss of a 
`B' Train NSWS pump after the loss of the Lake Norman water supply. 
This defense in depth contingency effectively offsets the 
unavailability of the `A' Train NSWS SNSWP supply.
    In addition, pre-aligning the `B' Train NSWS to the SNSWP water 
supply in advance of the proposed activities prevents the 
introduction of potential equipment failures during an ESFAS 
demanded transfer. This action also eliminates the time it would 
take operators to perform the transfer following a seismic event.
    The quantified impact of defense in depth measures and 
compensatory actions on CDF/LERF cannot be precisely determined, yet 
it is agreed that the implementation of these actions would only 
serve to improve these risk parameters.
    Not included in the overall risk evaluation is the additional 
margin identified by the Fragility Assessment discussed previously 
that concluded that the Lake Norman Dam and LLI would survive a SSE.
    As stated in NRC Generic Letter 80-30, ``Clarification of the 
Term `Operable' as it Applies to Single Failure Criterion for Safety 
Systems Required by TS,'' there is no requirement to assume a single 
failure while operating under a Technical Specification (TS) 
required action. Therefore, there will be no effect on the analysis 
of any accident or the progression of the accident since the 
operable [nuclear service water (NSW)] `B' train is capable of 
serving 100 percent of all the required heat loads. As such, there 
is no impact on consequence mitigation for any transient or 
accident.
    In light of the above discussion, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is the one time extension of the required 
CTs from 72 hours for the ECCS, CSS, NSWS, AFW, CCW and the EDG 
[emergency diesel generator] systems and from 168 hours for the 
CRAVS and ABFVES systems to 336 hours. The requested change does not 
involve the addition or removal of any plant system, structure, or 
component.
    The proposed temporary TS changes do not affect the basic 
design, operation, or function of any of the systems associated with 
the TS impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed 
amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from that previously evaluated.
    McGuire intends to isolate, inspect, and repair the `A' Train 
NSWS supply from the SNSWP. This activity will require that `A' 
Train NSW be aligned to Lake Norman until the system is ready for 
post maintenance testing. This action maintains the NSW `A' Train's 
normal and automatic alignment to Lake Norman but will result in the 
inability to manually align the `A' Train NSWS to the SNSWP 
subsequent to a seismic event that results in damage to the supply 
piping from Lake Norman or the highly improbable loss of Lake 
Norman.
    Although considered inoperable, the `A' Train NSWS and supported 
systems will be technically capable of performing their intended 
functions. Throughout the repair project, compensatory measures will 
be in place to provide additional assurance that the affected 
systems will continue to be capable of performing their intended 
safety functions.
    No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of the 
requested changes creating the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant 
systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety 
analysis.
    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.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission

[[Page 60227]]

product barriers to perform their design functions during and 
following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. 
The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant and 
containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.
    Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change 
in the design or operation of the plant. The activity only extends 
the amount of time the `A' NSW system is allowed to be inoperable to 
correct the non-conforming condition on the `A' NSWS supply piping 
from the SNSWP. As stated previously, the `A' Train NSWS and 
supported equipment will remain in its Normal and ESFAS alignment 
during the extended CT and be functionally capable for all 
postulated events except a seismic event that results in loss of the 
Lake Norman water supply.
    Defense-in-depth measures involving use of the Main Supply 
Crossover piping to supply suction to affected unit's `A' Train NSWS 
pump from the `B' train SNSWP suction piping and the ability to 
implement the FLEX strategy on both units provide additional safety 
margin for this event. Use of the Main Supply Crossover line is only 
needed in the unlikely event that one unit's `B' Train NSWS pump 
fails after loss of `A' Train NSWS due to an earthquake.
    The estimated ICCDP during the 14 day CT extension is much less 
than the limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 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: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: November 8, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17312A364.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications requirements for secondary containment. The 
proposed changes are based in part on Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-551, ``Revise Secondary Containment 
Surveillance Requirements [SRs],'' Revision 3 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML16277A226).
    The application also included similar requests for Dresden Nuclear 
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 1 and 2. However, these requests are being reviewed separately 
and are not within the scope of this notice.
    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 SRs are 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 (i.e., allowed outage time) for an inoperable 
secondary containment. In addition, the proposed change provides an 
alternative means to ensure the secondary containment safety 
function is met. As a result, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    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 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 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 addresses conditions during which the 
secondary containment SRs are not met. Conditions in which the 
secondary containment vacuum is less than the required vacuum are 
acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the 
SGT [standby gas treatment] System to establish the required 
secondary containment vacuum under post-accident conditions within 
the time assumed in the accident analysis. This condition is 
incorporated in the proposed change by requiring an analysis of 
actual environmental and secondary containment pressure conditions 
to confirm the capability of the SGT System is maintained within the 
assumptions of the accident analysis.
    Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is 
not affected.
    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 
requested amendments involve 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: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: August 22, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17234A025.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would remove the 
note associated with Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 
Section

[[Page 60228]]

3.5.1.2. The note allows the low pressure coolant injection subsystems 
to be considered operable in MODE 3 under certain conditions.
    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 Note in Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.2 could make Low Pressure 
Coolant Injection (LPCI) susceptible to potential water hammer in 
the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system if in the Shutdown Cooling 
(SDC) Mode of RHR in Mode 3 when swapping from the SDC to LPCI mode 
of RHR.
    The proposed change will remove the TS Note and eliminate the 
risk for pump cavitation, water hammer through voiding in the 
suction piping, and potential damage to the RHR system.
    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 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 TS Note is appropriate 
because current TSs could put the plant at risk for potential pump 
cavitation and voiding in the suction piping, resulting in water 
hammer and potential damage to the RHR system.
    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 conforms to NRC regulatory guidance 
regarding the content of plant Technical Specifications. The 
proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, 
or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the 
plant.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: October 20, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17293A280.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, 
``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control.'' The proposed 
amendment would replace existing technical specification (TS) 
requirements related to operations with a potential for draining the 
reactor vessel with new requirements on Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) 
Water Inventory Control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.4. Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.4 requires the 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 [operation with a potential for draining the reactor vessels] 
with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 
2.1.1.4. Draining of Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) water inventory 
in Mode 4 (cold shutdown) and Mode 5 (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 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 2.1.1.4. 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

[[Page 60229]]

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 2.1.1.4. New requirements 
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water 
inventory could drain to the TAF 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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: September 25, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17268A188.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to combined license (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications 
(TS) and plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 
information and departures from plant-specific Tier 1 information (and 
associated COL Appendix C information). Pursuant to the provisions of 
10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as 
certified in the 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, design certification rule 
is also requested for the plant-specific DCD Tier 1 material 
departures.
    Specifically, the requested amendment proposes changes to TS to 
allow Reactor Coolant System vacuum fill operations in cold shutdown 
(i.e., MODE 5) conditions, and conforming consistency changes to plant-
specific DCD information in the form of departures from DCD Tier 2 
information, as incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR). Other proposed TS changes address corrections to TS 
Actions and Applicability for consistency within the TS.
    Additionally, the requested amendment proposes to depart from 
plant-specific AP1000 DCD Tier 2 information, as incorporated into the 
UFSAR, and also involves departure from Tier 1 Design Descriptions and 
Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria related to 
inspecting the volume in the containment that allows for floodup to 
support long-term core cooling for postulated loss-of-coolant 
accidents.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of 
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter 
any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events.
    The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and 
operation of the CMTs [Core Makeup Tanks], ADS [Automatic 
Depressurization System] valves, or ESFAS [Engineered Safety 
Features Actuation System] as described in the UFSAR. Inadvertent 
operation or failure of the ADS valves are considered as accident 
initiators or part of an initiating sequence of events for an 
accident previously evaluated. However, the proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the probability of inadvertent operation or 
failure. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously 
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
    The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the CMTs, ADS 
valves, or ESFAS to perform their design functions. The designs of 
the CMTs, ADS valves, and ESFAS continue to meet the same regulatory 
acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR. 
In addition, the proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the 
CMTs, ADS valves, and ESFAS to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident and to meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria.
    The proposed changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation 
of other abnormal events (e.g., anticipated operational occurrences, 
earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles), or their safety or design 
analyses. Therefore, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in 
the UFSAR are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, 
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events is created.
    The proposed changes do not affect any other SSC design 
functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new 
failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-
related or nonsafety related equipment. Therefore, this activity 
does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a 
new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence 
of events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The 
proposed changes verify and maintain the capabilities of the CMTs, 
ADS valves, or ESFAS to perform their design functions. Therefore, 
the proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance 
with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These 
changes do not affect any design code, function, design analysis, 
safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710

[[Page 60230]]

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
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: November 3, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17307A201.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to depart from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (which includes the plant-specific design control document (DCD) 
Tier 2 information) and involves related changes to plant-specific Tier 
1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated combined 
license (COL) Appendix C information.
    The proposed changes would revise the licensing basis description 
of an administrative program to manage a limited quantity of 
unqualified inorganic zinc coatings in Service Level I areas of the 
containment. The requested amendment also involves related changes to 
plant-specific Tier 1 Table 2.2.3-4, inspections, tests, analyses, and 
acceptance criteria information, with corresponding changes to the 
associated COL Appendix C information.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation or reliability 
of any system, structure or component (SSC) required to maintain a 
normal power operating condition or to mitigate anticipated 
transients without safety-related systems. The existence or failure 
of an unqualified coating in a Service Level I area could not 
initiate an accident previously evaluated. Safe shutdown using 
nonsafety-related systems is achieved without significant 
containment steaming, and does not rely on containment heat transfer 
or containment recirculation. The proposed changes do not affect the 
operation of equipment whose failure could initiate an accident 
previously analyzed. The existence or failure of unqualified 
coatings in Service Level I areas does not affect normal equipment 
operation. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect the reliability or 
function of an SSC relied upon to mitigate an accident previously 
analyzed. A coating nonconformance that could adversely affect the 
reliability or function of the containment vessel would not be 
accepted under the quality assurance (QA) program arrangements. The 
existence of unqualified coatings in Service Level I areas will not 
adversely affect the heat transfer through the containment vessel. 
The existence or failure of unqualified coatings in Service Level I 
areas will not adversely affect passive core cooling system (PXS) 
performance during containment recirculation because the total 
allowable amount of unqualified coating is restricted to within 
analyzed limits. Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve 
a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of systems or 
equipment that could initiate a new or different kind of accident, 
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events is created. Under the existing quality assurance 
arrangements (procedures, policies, processes, etc.), 
nonconformances that adversely affect reliability or function of a 
safety-related SSC would not be accepted. The proposed changes do 
not affect the physical design and operation of the containment 
vessel or the PXS. The existence or failure of an unqualified 
coating in a Service Level I area as controlled by the quality 
assurance program nonconformance disposition process for managing 
unqualified coatings could not create new failure modes, new 
malfunctions, or change a sequence of events such that a new or 
different kind of accident is created.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect existing safety margins. The 
heat transfer capabilities and structural integrity of the 
containment vessel are maintained with the proposed changes. The 
safety injection and containment recirculation functions of the PXS 
and containment vessel are maintained with the proposed changes. 
Management of coatings continues to comply with recommended industry 
standards and with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.54. The existence of 
unqualified coatings in Service Level I areas will not require 
revision to any safety analysis or safety margin. Because the 
quantity of unqualified coatings will be restricted to within 
analyzed limits, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance 
criterion is challenged or exceeded due to the proposed changes.
    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.

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

[[Page 60231]]

Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan
    Date of amendment request: July 25, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 15, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment eliminated the 
Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.6, ``Inservice Testing and 
Inspection Program,'' to remove requirements duplicated in American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Operations and 
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants and ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
Code, Section XI. The amendment also added a new defined term, 
``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,'' to TS Section 1.1, ``Definitions.'' The 
elimination of TS 5.5.6 and the addition of the new defined term 
``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM'' is consistent with TSTF-545, Revision 3, 
``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule 
Application to Section 5.5 Testing.'' In addition, the amendment 
modified TS 5.5.4, ``Radioactive Effluent Control Program,'' to clarify 
that Surveillance Requirements 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 are applicable to the 
requirement for that program contained in Offsite Dose Calculation 
Manual.
    Date of issuance: November 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 207. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17128A316; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: This amendment 
revised the renewed facility operating license and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81 
FR 83874). The supplemental letter dated August 15, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina
    Date of amendment request: February 26, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 30, June 1, and October 13, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' 
to allow sufficient time to replace the stator of each Keowee Hydro 
Unit.
    Date of issuance: November 20, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 406 (Unit 1), 408 (Unit 2), and 407 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17124A608; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 
43650). The supplemental letters dated January 30, June 1, and October 
13, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick 
Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: July 24, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the renewed 
facility operating license to reflect the transfer of the direct 
ownership of FitzPatrick and the FitzPatrick Independent Spent Fuel 
Storage Installation General License from Exelon Generation Company, 
LLC, to Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC.
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 317. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17313A077; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed in a letter dated November 7, 
2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17240A069).
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the renewed facility operating license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 17, 2017 (82 FR 
39139).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2017.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois
    Date of amendment request: April 27, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 27 and September 28, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' to allow for the permanent extension of the Type A 
integrated leak rate testing and Type C leak rate testing frequencies. 
The amendments also deleted a Type A test extension that expired in 
2009 for Unit 1, and 2008 for Unit 2, from TS 5.5.12.a.
    Date of issuance: December 1, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--269; Unit 2--264. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17311A162; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30: 
Amendments revised the TSs and licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR 
27888). The supplemental letters dated July 27 and September 28, 2017, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 60232]]

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-263, 50-282, 
and 50-306, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), and Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, Wright County 
and Goodhue County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the PINGP, 
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.3, ``Plant Staff 
Qualifications,'' and MNGP, TS 5.3, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,'' 
subsections 5.3.1 to add an exception for licensed operators from the 
education and experience eligibility requirements of American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) N18.1-1971, ``Selection and Training of 
Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,'' by requiring that licensed operators 
comply only with the requirements of 10 CFR 55, ``Operators' 
Licenses.'' The amendment also revised the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, and 
MNGP TS 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' subsections 5.1-5.3 by making 
changes to standardize and align formatting to the extent possible 
between the TSs.
    Date of issuance: November 28, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 195--MNGP; 221--PINGP Unit 1; and 208--PINGP Unit 
2. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. 
ML17310B239; documents related to these amendments are listed in the 
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-22, DPR-42, and DPR-60: 
The amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR 
26133).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 23, 2016, February 16, 2017, and October 4, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.16, ``Spent Fuel Storage Pool Boron 
Concentration,'' and TS 4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage Criticality,'' to allow 
spent fuel pool storage of fresh and spent nuclear fuel containing a 
boron-based neutron absorber in the form of zirconium diboride integral 
fuel burnable absorber.
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 222--Unit 1; 209--Unit 2. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17334A178; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The 
amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR 
19648). The supplemental letters dated May 23, 2016, February 16, 2017, 
and October 4, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the renewed 
facility operating license Paragraph 3.C, ``Security and Safeguards 
Contingency Plans.'' The amendment revised the FCS Cyber Security Plan 
implementation schedule for the Milestone 8 full implementation date 
from December 31, 2017, to December 28, 2018.
    Date of issuance: November 22, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by December 31, 2017.
    Amendment No.: 294. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17289A060; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the renewed facility operating license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR 
26134).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: July 1, 2016, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 24, 2016; February 10, June 1, and July 12, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
requirements of Technical Specification 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' for Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2. Specifically, the amendments allowed an increase in the existing 
testing intervals for the Type A integrated leakage rate test program, 
and for the Type C containment isolation valve leakage testing of 
selected components.
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 6 months of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-288; Unit 2-233. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17271A307; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: 
Amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 13, 2016 (81 
FR 62930). The supplemental letters dated August 24, 2016; and February 
10, June 1, and July 12, 2017, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 60233]]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia
    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016.
    Description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes to the 
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to eliminate 
pressurizer spray line monitoring during pressurizer surge line testing 
for the first plant testing only. In addition, these changes correct 
inconsistencies in testing purpose, testing duration, and the ability 
to leave equipment in place following the data collection period.
    Date of issuance: August 22, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 83 (Unit 3) and 82 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17159A485; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 14, 2017 (82 
FR 10590).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 22, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia
    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2017.
    Description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes to the 
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in 
the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design 
Control Document Tier 2 information and involves changes to the 
Facility Combined License Appendix A to modify engineered safety 
features logic for containment vacuum relief actuation.
    Date of issuance: October 12, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 90 (Unit 3) and 89 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17241A101; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR 
15386).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated October 12, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

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

    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to

[[Page 60234]]

the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may 
be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. 
Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons 
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations 
are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website 
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. 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 website 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 [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital

[[Page 60235]]

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 website 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 website 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 website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 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.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
    Date of amendment request: November 22, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 24, 2017.
    Description of amendments: The licensee requested a one-time, 
deterministic emergency license amendment to revise the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) for an extension of the emergency diesel generator 
(EDG) No. 4 completion time (CT) from 14 days to 30 days. A 
commensurate change would extend the maximum CT of Required Action D.5 
associated with discovery of failure to meet Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.a or b (i.e., from 17 days to 33 days). In 
addition, the licensee has requested to suspend monthly testing of EDGs 
1, 2, and 3 per Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.2, SR 3.8.1.3, and 
SR 3.8.1.6 during the proposed extended CTs, if applicable. The license 
removed EDG No. 4 from service for a planned maintenance to repair a 
suspected bearing degradation on November 13, 2017. On November 19, 
2017, the licensee identified that an increase in the original work 
scope would extend the EDG 4 maintenance outage beyond the current TS 
3.8.1, Required Action D.5, CT of 0745 EST on November 27, 2017, at 
which time TS 3.8.1, Condition H would be entered requiring both units 
to be in Mode 3 (hot stand by) within 12 hours. Therefore, the 
emergency situation could not have been avoided.
    Date of issuance: November 26, 2017.
    Effective date: November 27, 2017, at 7:45 a.m. Eastern Standard 
Time.
    Amendment Nos.: 282 (Unit 1) and 310 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17328B072; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: 
Amendments revised the TSs and additional conditions of the licenses.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26, 
2017.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
550

[[Page 60236]]

South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Greg A. Casto,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-27087 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P