81 FR 92863 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 244 (December 20, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 244 (December 20, 2016)
| Page Range | 92863-92880 | |
| FR Document | 2016-30438 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 92863-92880] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-30438] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0256] 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 22, 2016, to December 5, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on December 6, 2016. DATES: Comments must be filed by January 19, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by February 21, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http:// www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID: NRC-2016-0256. 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: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0256, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods: Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http:// www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID: NRC-2016-0256. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [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-2016-0256, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http:/ /www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. [[Page 92864]] Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition 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, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (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. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated at 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 shall 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 those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 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 these requirements 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, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day 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). 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 decide 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 held 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 any 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). [[Page 92865]] The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by February 21, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in 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 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, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter ``petition''), and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating 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. 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 request: (1) A digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are 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 documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E- Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [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 7 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 a document 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 http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a petition will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a [[Page 92866]] proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. 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. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Duke Energy 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: September 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16287A421. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values contained in the Technical Specifications (TSs) for two recirculation loop operation and for single loop recirculation operation. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed SLMCPR values have been determined using NRC- approved methods discussed in AREVA Topical Report ANP-10307PA, Revision 0, AREVA MCPR Safety Limit Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors, June 2011, as augmented by the associated TS Appendix B Additional Condition related to channel bow model uncertainty. Establishing a two recirculation loop SLMCPR value of >=1.07 and a single recirculation loop SLMCPR value of >=1.09 ensures that the acceptance criteria continues to be met (i.e., at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling). The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The proposed license amendments do not involve any plant modifications or operational changes that could affect system reliability or performance, or that could affect the probability of operator error. As such, the proposed changes do not affect any postulated accident precursors. Since no individual precursors of an accident are affected, the proposed license amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability of a previously analyzed event. The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those consequences. The basis for the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that during normal operation and during anticipated operational occurrences, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling if the safety limit is not exceeded. Based on these considerations, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of previously analyzed accident. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value calculated for two recirculation loop operation and single recirculation loop operation to ensure at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling if the safety limit is not exceeded. SLMCPR values are calculated using NRC-approved methodology identified in the TS. The proposed SLMCPR values do not involve any new modes of plant operation or any plant modifications and do not directly or indirectly affect the failure modes of any plant systems or components. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least 99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences if the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded. Revision of the SLMCPR values in Technical Specification 2.1.1.2, using NRC-approved methodology, will ensure that the current level of fuel protection is maintained by continuing to ensure that the fuel design safety criterion is met (i.e., that no more than 0.1 percent of the rods are expected to be in boiling transition if the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded). Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Date of amendment request: October 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS, under Accession No. ML16301A150. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TS) to revise requirements for unavailable barriers by adding new Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9. This LCO establishes conditions under which systems would remain operable when required physical barriers are not capable of providing their related support function. This proposed amendment is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-427, Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITLY.'' The Notice of Availability of this TS improvement and the model application was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as part of the consolidated line item improvement process. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) by citing the proposed NSHC determination published by the NRC staff in the Federal Register notice referenced above. The proposed NSHC is reproduced below: Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated. The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is [[Page 92867]] assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety. The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William B. Glew, Jr., Associate General Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. 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: September 12, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16258A146. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the setpoint for detecting a loss of voltage on the 4.16 kilovolt essential service system (ESS) buses. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the 4.16 kV Essential Service System (ESS) bus loss of voltage allowable values allows the protection scheme to function as originally designed. This change will involve alteration of nominal trip setpoints in the field and will also be reflected in revisions to the calibration procedures. The proposed change does not affect the probability or consequences of any accident. Analysis was conducted and demonstrates that the proposed allowable values will allow the normally operating safety related motors to continue to operate without sustaining damage or tripping during the worst-case, non-accident degraded voltage condition for the maximum possible time-delay of 332.3 seconds. Thus, these safety related loads will be available to perform their safety function if a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) concurrent with a loss-of offsite power (LOOP) occurs following the degraded voltage condition. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration or the plant or the manner in which the plant is operated or maintained. The proposed allowable values ensure that the 4.16 kV distribution system remains connected to the offsite power system when adequate offsite voltage is available and motor starting transients are considered. The emergency diesel generator (EDG) start due to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected by this change. During an actual loss of voltage condition, the loss of voltage time delay will continue to isolate the 4.16 kV distribution system from offsite power before the EDG is ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time basis for mitigating system responses to the accident. For this reason, the existing loss of power LOCA analysis continues to be valid. 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 involves the revision of 4.16 kV ESS bus loss of voltage allowable values to satisfy existing design requirements. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed change does not install any new or different type of equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed protection voltage allowable values are low enough to prevent inadvertent power supply transfer, but high enough to ensure that sufficient power is available to the required equipment. The EDG start due to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected by this change. During an actual loss of voltage condition, the loss of voltage time delays will continue to isolate the 4.16 kV distribution system from offsite power before the EDG is ready to assume the emergency loads. 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 Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Acting Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller. [[Page 92868]] FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16277A194. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Emergency Plan by revising the emergency action level (EAL) schemes to one based on Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A805). NEI 99-01, Revision 6, was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC- endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not alter any of the requirements of the technical specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. 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 changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC- endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. BVPS functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators. 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 changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC- endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes. There are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed EAL scheme change. The proposed change does not affect the technical specifications. There are no changes to environmental conditions of any of the SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. The applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio Date of amendment request: November 1, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16307A029. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core [Safety Limits] SLs,'' to reduce the reactor steam dome pressure value. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Decreasing the reactor steam dome pressure limit in Technical Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 expands the range of use of the GEXL14 and GEXL17 correlations (applicable to GE14 and GNF2 fuel respectively) and the calculation of the minimum critical power ratio (CPR). The CPR increases during the pressure reduction that occurs during the [Pressure Regulator Failure-Maximum Demand (Open)] PRFO event, so that the initial CPR is the limiting CPR condition during the entire transient. CPR increases during the event relative to the initial CPR value, so fuel cladding integrity is not threatened. Since the change does not involve a modification of any plant hardware, the probability and consequence of the PRFO transient are essentially unchanged. The proposed change will continue to support the application range of the GEXL correlations applied at PNPP and the calculation of the minimum CPR. The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal, accident or transient operating conditions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed reduction in the reactor steam dome pressure limit in Technical Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 from 785 psig to 686 psig is a change based on NRC approved documents that permit a wider range of applicability for the GEXL critical power correlations for both GE14 and GNF2 fuel types in the reactor core. This change does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. There are no changes in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function, nor are there any changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition by GE determined that, since the critical power ratio improves during the PRFO transient, there is no impact on the fuel safety margin, and there is no challenge to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed changes do not change the requirements governing operation or the availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. [[Page 92869]] The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Senior Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16302A055. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel fuel oil and lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TS to the TS Bases. The proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.'' Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and lube oil required to support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee control. The specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6-day supply is calculated using the NRC-approved methodology described in Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby Diesel Generators'' and ANSI-N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil Systems for Standby Diesel-Generators.'' The specific volume of lube oil equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day supply is based on the diesel generator manufacturer's consumption values for the run time of the diesel generator. Because the requirement to maintain a 7-day supply of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is consistent with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the actions taken when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil are less than a 6-day supply have not changed, neither the probability nor the consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures that the diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and lube oil required to support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee control. As the bases for the existing limits on diesel fuel oil, and lube oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident analysis assumptions and no margin of safety is reduced as part of this change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Senior Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek (Hope Creek) Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: October 7, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16281A139. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Hope Creek Technical Specifications by incorporating Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report 94-01, Revision 3-A, and the conditions and limitations specified in NEI topical report 94-01, Revision 2-A, as the implementation document for the Hope Creek performance-based containment leakage rate testing program. Based on guidance in NEI 94- 01, Revision 3-A, the proposed change would allow the Hope Creek Type A Test (Integrated Leak Rate Test, or ILRT) frequency to be extended from 10 to 15 years, and the Type C Tests (Local Leak Rate Tests, or LLRTs) frequency to be extended from 60 to 75 months. In addition, the amendment would delete a one-time extension of the test frequencies previously granted in License Amendment No. 147. 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 activity involves revision of the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.f, Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, to allow the extension of the HCGS Type A containment integrated leakage rate test interval to 15 years, and the extension of the Type C local leakage rate test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The existing Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident. The change in dose risk for changing the Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) interval from three-per-ten years to once-per- fifteen-years, measured as an increase to the total integrated dose risk for all internal events accident sequences, is 5.15E-03 person- rem/yr (0.01%) using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) guidance with the base case corrosion included. This change meets both of the related acceptance criteria for change in population dose. The change in dose risk drops to 1.38E-03 person-rem/yr (<0.01%) when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. As documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test [[Page 92870]] Program,'' dated January 1995, Types B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The HCGS Type A test history supports this conclusion. The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) activity based, and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed test interval extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how HCGS is operated. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment to TS 6.8.4.f, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' involves the extension of the HCGS Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the standard functional capabilities of the equipment. The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how HCGS is operated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated for HCGS. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment to TS 6.8.4.f involves the extension of the HCGS Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak- tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained. The proposed change involves the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for HCGS. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section Xl and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals. The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has taken place; therefore, the deletion is solely an administrative action and does not change how HCGS is operated and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina Date of amendment request: September 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16273A557. Description of amendment request: The changes would amend Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, respectively. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from a plant- specific Design Control Document Tier 2 figure and a Combined Operating License (COL) Appendix C table. Specifically, the proposed departures consist of changes to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6-1, Sheet 2 of 2, and COL Appendix C, Table 2.3.2-4, related to the configuration of the boric acid storage tank (BAST) suction point. The change also aligns the Tier 1 Chemical and Volume Control System (CVS) makeup flow rate with previously approved Tier 2 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 alter the BAST suction point by relocating the common inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank to the side of the tank and to align the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow to the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) with the previously approved Tier 2 descriptions and analyses. No change is made to the minimum required volume of the BAST, the included concentrations, or the overall operation of the system. The proposed changes do not alter any safety related functions, and the analyses previously performed on the potential for an inadvertent dilution event are not affected. Consequently, there is no change to an accident initiator in the UFSAR and accordingly, there is no change to the probabilities of accident previously evaluated. The radioactive source terms and release paths are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the UFSAR accident analyses are not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of [[Page 92871]] accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to alter the BAST suction point affects only nonsafety-related equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks in the BAST. The basic requirements, including the applicable codes and standards, for the configuration of the BAST are unchanged. In addition, the change to the ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not alter the design of the CVS, which is currently limited in the design to 175 gallons per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. Consequently, because the BAST codes and standards are unchanged and the CVS is otherwise unchanged, there is no effect on accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change to the BAST piping configuration and to the CVS makeup flow ITAAC does not alter any safety-related equipment, applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and thus, the margin of safety is not 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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina Date of amendment request: September 2, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16246A214. Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to a plant-specific Tier 1 (and combined license Appendix C) table and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) tables to clarify the flow area for the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) fourth stage squib valves and to reduce the minimum effective flow area for the second and third stage ADS control valves. 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 Design Control Document Tier 1 material departures. 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 (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the physical design and operation of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves, including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves is not adversely affected. Inadvertent operation or failure of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib 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, nor the consequences of such accident precursor sequences. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to perform their design functions. The designs of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves 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 second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to mitigate the consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria. The proposed changes do not adversely 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 adversely affect the physical design and operation of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves, including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves is not adversely affected. These proposed changes do not adversely 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 results 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 maintain the capabilities of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to perform their design functions. The proposed changes maintain existing safety margin through continued application of the existing requirements of the UFSAR, while updating the acceptance criteria for verifying the design features necessary to confirm the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves perform the design functions required to meet the existing safety margins in the safety analyses. 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 adversely 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 requested 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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC, [[Page 92872]] 1111. Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514. NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., (SNC) Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16285A354. Description of amendment request: SNC stated that the current Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems-- Operating,'' contains a conservative Completion Time of 8 hours for an inoperable 600 Volt alternating current (AC) load center (LC) 1-2R. The proposed change would add new Action Conditions to TS 3.8.9 and include appropriate Required Actions and associated Completion Times for LC 1- 2R. 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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The licensee's analysis is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment revises the TS requirements to include an appropriate Condition, Required Actions and associated Completion Times to address an inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--Operating.'' The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The 600V LC are not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The LC 1-2R provides power to equipment that may be used to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change to TS 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--Operating'' provides assurance that the requirements of the TS appropriately address all the equipment that is required to be operable by TS 3.8.9. Thus, the proposed change does not affect the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment revises the TS to include an appropriate Condition, Required Actions, and associated Completion Times to address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems- Operating.'' The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change to the TS assures that the TS appropriately addresses all the equipment required to be operable to support the electrical distribution system. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety. Therefore, it is concluded that 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 amendment revises the TS requirements to include an appropriate Condition, Required Actions, and associated Completion Times to address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--Operating.'' The proposed change to TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems-- Operating'' provides assurance that all the requirements of the TS are appropriately addressed in the Action Conditions. The proposed change serves to make the TS more complete and appropriate for all the equipment required to be operable to support the electrical distribution system. Thus, the proposed change does not involve a change in the margin of safety. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52- 026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: October 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16300A325. Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4, respectively. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from a plant- specific Design Control Document Tier 2 figure and a Combined Operating License (COL) Appendix C table. Specifically, the proposed departures consist of changes to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6-1, Sheet 2 of 2, and COL Appendix C, Table 2.3.2-4, related to the configuration of the boric acid storage tank (BAST) suction point. The changes also align the Tier 1 chemical and volume control system (CVS) makeup flow rate with previously approved Tier 2 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 alter the BAST suction point by relocating the common inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank to the side of the tank and aligns the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow to the reactor coolant system (RCS) with the previously approved Tier 2 descriptions and analyses. No change is made to the minimum required volume of the BAST, the included concentrations, or the overall operation of the system. The proposed changes do not alter any safety-related functions, and the analyses previously performed on the potential for an inadvertent dilution event are not affected. Consequently, there is no change to an accident initiator in the UFSAR and accordingly, there is no change to the probabilities of accident previously evaluated. The radioactive source terms and release paths are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the UFSAR accident analyses are not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? [[Page 92873]] Response: No. The proposed change to alter the BAST suction point affects only nonsafety-related equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks in the BAST. The basic requirements, including the applicable codes and standards, for the configuration of the BAST are unchanged. In addition, the change to the ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not alter the design of the CVS, which is currently limited in the design to 175 gallons per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. Consequently, because the BAST codes and standards are unchanged and the CVS is otherwise unchanged, there is no effect on accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change to the BAST piping configuration and to the CVS makeup flow ITAAC does not alter any safety-related equipment, applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and thus, the margin of safety is not reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety from any accident previously evaluated. 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: Michael T. Markley. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16244A253. Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information and a combined license (COL) License Condition which references one of the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed changes to the UFSAR eliminate pressurizer spray line monitoring during pressurizer surge line first plant only testing. In addition, these proposed changes correct inconsistencies in testing purpose, testing duration, and the ability to leave equipment in place following the data collection period. These changes involve material which is specifically referenced in Section 2.D.(2) of the COLs. This submittal requests approval of the license amendment necessary to implement these changes. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The design functions of the [reactor coolant system (RCS)] include providing an effective reactor coolant pressure boundary. The proposed changes for removing the requirement to install temporary instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line during the monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the pressurizer spray and surge l ine valve leakage requirement do not impact the existing design requirements for the RCS. These changes are acceptable as they are consistent with the commitments made for the pressurizer surge line monitoring program for the first plant only, and do not adversely affect the capability of the pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray lines to perform the required reactor coolant pressure boundary design functions. These proposed changes to the monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the pressurizer spray and surge line valve leakage requirement as described in the current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes create any new accident precursors. Therefore, the requested 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 for removing the requirement to install temporary instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line during the monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the pressurizer spray and surge line valve leakage requirement as described in the current licensing basis maintain the required design functions, and are consistent with other Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design requirements for the RCS, including the pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray lines. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed changes do not result in a new failure mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design function described in the UFSAR is adversely affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the requested 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. 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 requested 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. 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: October 14, 2016. Publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16288A810. Description of amendment request: The requested amendment requires a change to the Combined License (COL) Appendix A, as well as plant- specific [[Page 92874]] Tier 2, Tier 2 *, and COL Appendix C (and corresponding plant-specific Tier 1). The proposed changes would revise the licenses basis documents to add design detail to the automatic depressurization system (ADS) blocking device and to add the blocking device to the design of the in- containment refueling water storage tank injection squib valves actuation logic. An exemption request relating to the proposed changes to the AP1000 Design Control Document Tier 1 is included with the request. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The AP1000 accident analysis previously evaluated a loss of coolant accident caused by an inadvertent ADS valve actuation. Adding design detail to the ADS blocking device, and applying the blocking device to the [in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST)] injection valves, does not impact this analysis. Using a blocking device on the ADS and IRWST injection valves is a design feature which further minimizes the probability of a loss of coolant accident caused by a spurious valve actuation. Furthermore, because the blocking device is designed to prevent a spurious valve actuation due to a software [common cause failure (CCF)] and does not adversely impact any existing design feature, it does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not affect the prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated operation occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine missiles, and fires or their safety or design analyses. This change does not involve containment of radioactive isotopes or any adverse effect on a fission product barrier. There is no impact on previously evaluated accidents source terms. The [protection and safety monitoring system (PMS)] is still able to actuate ADS and IRWST injection valves for plant conditions which require their actuation. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the 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 involve a new failure mechanism or malfunction, which affects an SSC accident initiator, or interface with any [structure, system, or component (SSC)] accident initiator or initiating sequence of events considered in the design and licensing bases. There is no adverse effect on radioisotope barriers or the release of radioactive materials. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect any accident, including the possibility of creating a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The blocking device is independent of PMS processor hardware and software. It is designed to allow for ADS and IRWST injection actuations when the plant parameters indicate an actual [loss of coolant accident (LOCA)] event. Therefore, the ADS and IRWST are still able to perform their safety functions when required. A postulated failure of a blocking device which would prevent necessary ADS and IRWST injection valve opening would be detected by the proposed periodic surveillance testing within the [Technical Specifications (TS)]. Failure of the ADS actuation or IRWST injection valve opening in a division could also result from concurrent failure of the two Core Makeup Tanks (CMTs) level sensors in one division, with both sensors reading above the blocking setpoint. Failures of the level sensors would be immediately detected due to the deviations in redundant measurements. Furthermore, the proposed TS actions require that the four divisions of blocking devices be capable of automatically unblocking for each CMT. In addition, the TS require that the blocking devices be unblocked in plant modes which allow for the operability of less than two CMTs. The blocking device will continue to comply with the existing [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] regulatory requirements and industry standards. The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested 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 Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: January 26, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated July 14, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2 licensing basis to change the spent fuel pool heat load analysis description contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report. Date of issuance: November 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. [[Page 92875]] Amendment No.: 330. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16277A680; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised the Renewed Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR 32804). The supplemental letter dated July 14, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida Date of application for amendment: August 27, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated March 2, 2016, and July 14, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves the CR-3 Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan, and Permanently Defueled Emergency Action Level Bases Manual, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. Date of issuance: December 5, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16244A102; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: This amendment revises the License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69711). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 5, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: November 2, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated December 22, 2015; and March 31, May 9, and September 14, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure and temperature limits by replacing Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3, ``RCS Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, with figures that are applicable up to 50 effective full power years (EFPYs). Date of issuance: November 22, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16285A404; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10678). The supplemental letters dated March 31, May 9, and September 14, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Date of amendment request: August 18, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated September 29, 2015, February 5, 2016, April 28, 2016, and May 19, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies.'' Additionally, the change added a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to TS Section 6, ``Administrative Controls.'' Date of issuance: November 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 154. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16200A285; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The NRC staff initially made a proposed determination that the amendment request dated August 18, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated September 29, 2015, involved no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) (December 8, 2015, 80 FR 76319). By letters dated February 5, 2016, and April 28, 2016, the licensee provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the application and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed NSHC determination, as published in the Federal Register (FR) on December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76319). Subsequently, by letter dated May 19, 2016, the licensee supplemented its amendment request with a proposed change that expanded the scope of the request. Therefore, the NRC published a second proposed NSHC determination in the FR on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46118), which superseded the notice dated December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76319). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated November 29, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Unit No. 2, Will County, Illinois Date of application for amendment: September 30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16274A474), as supplemented by letters dated October 26 and 28, 2016, and November 14, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16301A073, ML16302A468, and ML16319A397). Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows a one-time extension from 72 hours to 200 hours of the technical specification completion time associated with the 2A service water (SX) pump in support of maintenance activities. Date of issuance: November 23, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to the 2A SX pump work window. Amendment No.: 191. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16315A302; documents related to this amendment [[Page 92876]] are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No NPF-77: The amendment revises the Technical Specifications and License Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 21, 2016 (81 FR 72838). The October 26 and 28, 2016 supplements, contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249. Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated June 30, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the technical specification (TS) for DNPS, Units 2 and 3, standby or emergency diesel generator (EDG) fuel oil day tank volume as described in TS 3.81, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' surveillance requirement (SR) 3.8.1.4, from the current value of greater than or equal to (>) 205 gallons to >245 gallons. Raising the EDG fuel oil day tank volume requirement will assure that each EDG can operate for one hour at the maximum allowable operating conditions. The licensee has identified this issue as a non-conservative Technical Specification and administrative controls are currently in-place to assure sufficient fuel oil is available in each fuel oil day tank. Date of issuance: November 30, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented no later than 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 252 and 245. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16305A212; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: Amendment revises the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specification. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10680). The supplemental letter dated June 30, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 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, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and June 21, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduce the reactor vessel steam dome pressure specified in the technical specifications (TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. The amendments also revise the setpoint and allowable value for the main steam line low pressure isolation function in the TSs. Date of issuance: November 21, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 222 and 183. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16272A319; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 2016 (81 FR 13842). The supplemental letters dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and June 21, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 21, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: February 23, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. Date of issuance: November 22, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 159. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16281A596; documents related to this amendment is listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with this amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016, (81 FR 28897). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York Date amendment request: August 1, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments would revise OCNGS's Technical Specification (TS) Section 2.1, ``Safety Limit--Fuel Cladding Integrity,'' and NMP1's TS Section 2.1.1, ``Fuel Cladding Integrity,'' to reduce the steam dome pressure. Date of issuance: November 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment Nos.: 289 for OCNGS and 225 for NMP1. A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16256A567; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-16 and DPR-63: Amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 27, 2016 (81 FR 66307). [[Page 92877]] The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: April 31, 2016, as supplemented by a letter dated August 11, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Appendix B (Environmental Protection Plan, Section 4.2) of the renewed operating licenses to reflect the ``currently applicable'' Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service March 24, 2016. Date of issuance: December 5, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 236 and 186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16251A128; documents related to these amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Appendix B. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36621). The supplemental letter dated August 11, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated December 5, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015 as supplemented January 11, 2016 and March 16, 2016. Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2* information as well as a change to a license condition to, in part, revise the Wall 11 structure by modifying openings, changing reinforcement detailing, clarifying the classification of building structures for high-energy line break events, crediting the north wall of the Turbine Building first bay wall as a high energy line break barrier and associated missile barriers for protection of Wall 11 from tornado missiles. Date of issuance: May 31, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 48. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16109A298; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR 5499). The supplemental letters dated January 11, 2016, and March 16, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016. Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the VEGP Units 3 and 4 listed minimum volume of the passive core cooling system core makeup tanks (CMT) reflected in Appendix A, Technical Specifications and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Combined Licenses. Specifically, the changes reflect a correction to align licensing documents to reflect the CMT volume given in the VEGP Combined License Tier 1 as 2487 cubic feet is based on and supported by a small-break loss-of-coolant accident safety analysis. Date of issuance: September 15, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 53. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16216A394; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43646). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2016. 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 29, 2016, and supplemented by letter dated April 8, 2016. Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information. The changes are also approved in plant-specific technical specifications. The changes incorporate information in WCAP-17524-P-A, Revision 1, ``AP1000 Core Reference Report,'' which was approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on February 19, 2015. Date of issuance: August 19, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 52. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16201A435; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR 17501). The supplemental letter dated April 8, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application request 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 the Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. [[Page 92878]] 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: December 22, 2015, and supplemented by letters dated May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016. Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated plant- specific Design Control Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information with respect to proposed changes to the design of auxiliary building Wall 11, and other changes to the licensing basis for use of seismic Category II structures. It also involves a change to a license condition. Date of issuance: August 3, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 51. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16201A298; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7835). The supplemental letters dated May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application request 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 the Safety Evaluation dated August 3, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances) During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments. In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible. Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved. The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition 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, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. [[Page 92879]] As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (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. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated at 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 shall 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 those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 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 these requirements 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, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day 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). 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 decide 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 held 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 any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by February 21, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in 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 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, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter ``petition''), and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating 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. 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 request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be [[Page 92880]] able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are 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 documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E- Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [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 7 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 a document 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 http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a petition will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. 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. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: November 26, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the High Pressure Core Spray system and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling system actuation instrumentation technical specifications by adding a footnote indicating that the injection functions of Drywell Pressure-High and Manual Initiation are not required to be operable under low reactor pressure conditions. Date of issuance: November 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 160. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16333A000; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. 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 29, 2016. Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas Pickett. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8 day of December, 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. George A. Wilson, Deputy, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2016-30438 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices 92863
III. License Amendment Request NUCLEAR REGULATORY Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
COMMISSION Regulatory Commission, Washington,
By letter dated August 14, 2014, and DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
supplemented by letter dated January [NRC–2016–0256]
5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.
16, 2015, the licensee requested that the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units
Amendments to Facility Operating I. Obtaining Information and
3 and 4, COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92. The Licenses and Combined Licenses
proposed amendment is described in Submitting Comments
Involving No Significant Hazards
Section I of this Federal Register notice. Considerations A. Obtaining Information
The Commission has determined for Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016–
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
these amendments that the application 0256, facility name, unit number(s),
Commission.
complies with the standards and plant docket number, application date,
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and subject when contacting the NRC
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) about the availability of information for
Commission’s rules and regulations. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as this action. You may obtain publicly-
The Commission has made appropriate amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear available information related to this
findings as required by the Act and the Regulatory Commission (NRC) is action by any of the following methods:
Commission’s rules and regulations in publishing this regular biweekly notice. • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in The Act requires the Commission to http://www.regulations.gov and search
the license amendment. publish notice of any amendments for Docket ID: NRC–2016–0256.
issued, or proposed to be issued, and • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
A notice of consideration of issuance grants the Commission the authority to Access and Management System
of amendment to facility operating issue and make immediately effective (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
license or COL, as applicable, proposed any amendment to an operating license available documents online in the
no significant hazards consideration or combined license, as applicable, ADAMS Public Documents collection at
determination, and opportunity for a upon a determination by the http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
hearing in connection with these Commission that such amendment adams.html. To begin the search, select
actions, was published in the Federal involves no significant hazards ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
Register on November 12, 2014 (79 FR consideration, notwithstanding the select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
67204). No comments were received pendency before the Commission of a Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
during the 30-day comment period. request for a hearing from any person. please contact the NRC’s Public
The Commission has determined that This biweekly notice includes all Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
notices of amendments issued, or 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
these amendments satisfy the criteria for
proposed to be issued, from November email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
categorical exclusion in accordance
22, 2016, to December 5, 2016. The last ADAMS accession number for each
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant biweekly notice was published on
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental document referenced (if it is available in
December 6, 2016. ADAMS) is provided the first time that
impact statement or environmental
DATES: Comments must be filed by it is mentioned in this document.
assessment need be prepared for these January 19, 2017. A request for a hearing • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
amendments. must be filed by February 21, 2017. purchase copies of public documents at
IV. Conclusion ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
by any of the following methods (unless White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Using the reasons set forth in the this document describes a different Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
combined safety evaluation, the staff method for submitting comments on a
B. Submitting Comments
granted the exemption and issued the specific subject):
amendment that the licensee requested • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–
on August 14, 2014, and supplemented http://www.regulations.gov and search 0256, facility name, unit number(s),
by letter dated January 16, 2015. for Docket ID: NRC–2016–0256. Address plant docket number, application date,
questions about NRC dockets to Carol and subject in your comment
The exemption and amendment were
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; submission.
issued on February 25, 2016, as part of email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For The NRC cautions you not to include
a combined package to the licensee technical questions, contact the identifying or contact information that
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16019A374). individual listed in the FOR FURTHER you do not want to be publicly
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day INFORMATION CONTACT section of this disclosed in your comment submission.
of December 2016. document. The NRC will post all comment
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, submissions at http://
Office of Administration, Mail Stop: www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
Jennifer Dixon-Herrity,
OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear comment submissions into ADAMS.
Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Regulatory Commission, Washington, The NRC does not routinely edit
Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
DC 20555–0001. comment submissions to remove
[FR Doc. 2016–30607 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am] For additional direction on obtaining identifying or contact information.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P information and submitting comments, If you are requesting or aggregating
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and comments from other persons for
Submitting Comments’’ in the submission to the NRC, then you should
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of inform those persons not to include
this document. identifying or contact information that
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: they do not want to be publicly
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear disclosed in their comment submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_93107/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices 92867
assessed and managed. The postulated The NRC staff has reviewed the available and motor starting transients are
initiating events which may require a licensee’s analysis and, based on this considered. The emergency diesel generator
functional barrier are limited to those with review, it appears that the three (EDG) start due to a LOCA signal is not
low frequencies of occurrence, and the adversely affected by this change. During an
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
overall TS system safety function would still actual loss of voltage condition, the loss of
be available for the majority of anticipated satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the voltage time delay will continue to isolate the
challenges. Therefore, the probability of an
amendment request involves no 4.16 kV distribution system from offsite
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased, if at all. The significant hazards consideration. power before the EDG is ready to assume the
consequences of an accident while relying on Attorney for licensee: William B. emergency loads, which is the limiting time
the allowance provided by proposed LCO Glew, Jr., Associate General Counsel— basis for mitigating system responses to the
3.0.9 are no different than the consequences Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton accident. For this reason, the existing loss of
of an accident while relying on the TS Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601. power LOCA analysis continues to be valid.
required actions in effect without the NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Therefore, the proposed change does not
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. involve a significant increase in the
Therefore, the consequences of an accident
Broaddus.
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not significantly Exelon Generation Company, LLC, previously evaluated.
affected by this change. The addition of a Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 2. Does the proposed amendment create
requirement to assess and manage the risk
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 the possibility of a new or different kind of
introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
change does not involve a significant Date of amendment request:
increase in the probability or consequences Response: No.
September 12, 2016. A publicly-
of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change involves the revision
available version is in ADAMS under
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does of 4.16 kV ESS bus loss of voltage allowable
Accession No. ML16258A146. values to satisfy existing design
Not Create the Possibility of a New or Description of amendment request:
Different Kind of Accident from any requirements. The proposed change does not
Accident Previously Evaluated.
The proposed amendment would revise introduce any changes or mechanisms that
The proposed change does not involve a the setpoint for detecting a loss of create the possibility of a new or different
physical alteration of the plant (no new or voltage on the 4.16 kilovolt essential kind of accident. The proposed change does
different type of equipment will be installed). service system (ESS) buses. not install any new or different type of
Allowing delay times for entering supported Basis for proposed no significant equipment, and installed equipment is not
system TS when inoperability is due solely hazards consideration determination: being operated in a new or different manner.
to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the No new effects on existing equipment are
and managed, will not introduce new failure licensee has provided its analysis of the created nor are any new malfunctions
modes or effects and will not, in the absence issue of no significant hazards introduced.
of other unrelated failures, lead to an
consideration, which is presented Therefore, the proposed change does not
accident whose consequences exceed the
consequences of accidents previously below: create the possibility of a new or different
evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 1. Does the proposed amendment involve kind of accident from any accident
assess and manage the risk introduced by this a significant increase in the probability or previously evaluated.
change will further minimize possible consequences of an accident previously 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
concerns. Thus, this change does not create evaluated? a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
the possibility of a new or different kind of Response: No. Response: No.
accident from an accident previously The proposed change to the 4.16 kV The proposed protection voltage allowable
evaluated. Essential Service System (ESS) bus loss of values are low enough to prevent inadvertent
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does voltage allowable values allows the power supply transfer, but high enough to
Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the protection scheme to function as originally ensure that sufficient power is available to
Margin of Safety. designed. This change will involve alteration the required equipment. The EDG start due
The proposed change allows a delay time of nominal trip setpoints in the field and will to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected by
for entering a supported system TS when the also be reflected in revisions to the
this change. During an actual loss of voltage
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable calibration procedures. The proposed change
condition, the loss of voltage time delays will
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The does not affect the probability or
postulated initiating events which may consequences of any accident. Analysis was continue to isolate the 4.16 kV distribution
require a functional barrier are limited to conducted and demonstrates that the system from offsite power before the EDG is
those with low frequencies of occurrence, proposed allowable values will allow the ready to assume the emergency loads.
and the overall TS system safety function normally operating safety related motors to Therefore, the proposed change does not
would still be available for the majority of continue to operate without sustaining involve a significant reduction in a margin of
anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the damage or tripping during the worst-case, safety.
proposed TS changes was assessed following non-accident degraded voltage condition for
the three-tiered approach recommended in the maximum possible time-delay of 332.3 The NRC staff has reviewed the
RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding seconds. Thus, these safety related loads will licensee’s analysis and, based on this
risk assessment was performed to justify the be available to perform their safety function review, it appears that the three
proposed TS changes. This application of if a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee’s concurrent with a loss-of offsite power satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
performance of a risk assessment and the (LOOP) occurs following the degraded proposes to determine that the
management of plant risk. The net change to voltage condition.
the margin of safety is insignificant as The proposed change does not adversely
requested amendments involve no
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
indicated by the anticipated low levels of affect accident initiators or precursors, and significant hazards consideration.
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental do not alter the design assumptions, Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
conditional core damage probability] and conditions, or configuration or the plant or Associate General Counsel, Exelon
ICLERP [incremental conditional large early the manner in which the plant is operated or Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road,
release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of maintained. The proposed allowable values Warrenville, IL 60555.
Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. ensure that the 4.16 kV distribution system
Therefore, this change does not involve a remains connected to the offsite power NRC Acting Branch Chief: G. Edward
significant reduction in a margin of safety. system when adequate offsite voltage is Miller.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_93107/page/5.svg)
![92868 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Therefore, the proposed change does not of the GEXL14 and GEXL17 correlations
Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 create the possibility of a new or different (applicable to GE14 and GNF2 fuel
and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power kind of accident from any previously respectively) and the calculation of the
evaluated. minimum critical power ratio (CPR). The
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and
3. Does the proposed amendment involve CPR increases during the pressure reduction
BVPS–2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania a significant reduction in a margin of safety? that occurs during the [Pressure Regulator
Date of amendment request: Response: No. Failure-Maximum Demand (Open)] PRFO
September 28, 2016. A publicly- The proposed changes to BVPS’s EAL event, so that the initial CPR is the limiting
available version is in ADAMS under scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance CPR condition during the entire transient.
of NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not involve any CPR increases during the event relative to the
Package Accession No. ML16277A194.
physical changes to plant systems or initial CPR value, so fuel cladding integrity
Description of amendment request: is not threatened. Since the change does not
equipment. Margins of safety are unaffected
The amendments would revise the involve a modification of any plant
by the proposed changes. There are no
BVPS–1 and BVPS–2 Emergency Plan changes being made to safety analysis hardware, the probability and consequence of
by revising the emergency action level assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety the PRFO transient are essentially
(EAL) schemes to one based on Nuclear system settings that would adversely affect unchanged.
Energy Institute (NEI) 99–01, Revision 6, plant safety as a result of the proposed EAL The proposed change will continue to
‘‘Development of Emergency Action scheme change. The proposed change does support the application range of the GEXL
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ not affect the technical specifications. There correlations applied at PNPP and the
are no changes to environmental conditions calculation of the minimum CPR. The
November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
of any of the SSC or the manner in which any proposed TS revision involves no significant
ML12326A805). NEI 99–01, Revision 6, changes to the operation of any systems or
SSC is operated. The applicable requirements
was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated components in normal, accident or transient
of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix
March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. E will continue to be met. operating conditions.
ML12346A463). Therefore, the proposed change does not Therefore, the proposed change does not
Basis for proposed no significant involve a significant reduction in a margin of involve a significant increase in the
hazards consideration determination: safety. probability or consequences of an accident
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the previously evaluated.
The NRC staff has reviewed the 2. Does the proposed change create the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this possibility of a new or different kind of
issue of no significant hazards
review, it appears that the three accident from any accident previously
consideration, which is presented evaluated?
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
below: Response: No.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
1. Does the proposed amendment involve proposes to determine that the The proposed reduction in the reactor
a significant increase in the probability or steam dome pressure limit in Technical
amendment request involves no
consequences of an accident previously Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 from 785
evaluated?
significant hazards consideration. psig to 686 psig is a change based on NRC
Response: No. Attorney for licensee: David W. approved documents that permit a wider
The proposed changes to BVPS’s EAL Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating range of applicability for the GEXL critical
scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 power correlations for both GE14 and GNF2
of NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not involve any South Main Street, Mail Stop A–GO–15, fuel types in the reactor core. This change
physical changes to plant systems or Akron, OH 44308. does not involve changes to the plant
equipment. The proposed changes do not NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. hardware or its operating characteristics.
alter any of the requirements of the technical Koenick. There are no changes in the method by which
specifications. The proposed changes do not any plant systems perform a safety function,
modify any plant equipment and do not FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating nor are there any changes in the methods
impact any failure modes that could lead to Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry governing normal plant operation. No new
an accident. Additionally, the proposed Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or
changes do not impact the ability of County, Ohio limiting single failures are introduced as a
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to result of the proposed changes. As a result,
perform their intended safety functions in Date of amendment request: no new failure modes are being introduced.
mitigating the consequences of an initiating November 1, 2016. A publicly-available Therefore, the change does not create the
event within the assumed acceptance limits. version is in ADAMS under Accession possibility of a new or different kind of
Therefore, the proposed change does not No. ML16307A029. accident from any previously evaluated.
involve a significant increase in the Description of amendment request: 3. Does the proposed change involve a
probability or consequences of an accident significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed amendment would revise
previously evaluated. Response: No.
2. Does the proposed amendment create Technical Specification 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor The margin of safety is established through
the possibility of a new or different kind of Core [Safety Limits] SLs,’’ to reduce the the design of the plant structures, systems,
accident from any accident previously reactor steam dome pressure value. and components, and through the parameters
evaluated? Basis for proposed no significant for safe operation and setpoints for the
Response: No. hazards consideration determination: actuation of equipment relied upon to
The proposed changes to BVPS’s EAL As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the respond to transients and design basis
scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance licensee has provided its analysis of the accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21
of NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not involve any issue of no significant hazards condition by GE determined that, since the
physical changes to plant systems or critical power ratio improves during the
consideration, which is presented
equipment. The proposed changes do not PRFO transient, there is no impact on the
involve the addition of any new plant
below: fuel safety margin, and there is no challenge
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
equipment. The proposed changes will not 1. Does the proposed change involve a to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed
alter the design configuration, or method of significant increase in the probability or changes do not change the requirements
operation of plant equipment beyond its consequences of an accident previously governing operation or the availability of
normal functional capabilities. BVPS evaluated? safety equipment assumed to operate to
functions will continue to be performed as Response: No. preserve the margin of safety.
required. The proposed changes do not create Decreasing the reactor steam dome Therefore, the proposed change does not
any new credible failure mechanisms, pressure limit in Technical Specification involve a significant reduction in a margin of
malfunctions, or accident initiators. Safety Limits 2.1.1 expands the range of use safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_93107/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices 92873
Response: No. line first plant only testing. In addition, probability or consequences of an accident
The proposed change to alter the BAST these proposed changes correct previously evaluated.
suction point affects only nonsafety-related inconsistencies in testing purpose, 2. Does the proposed amendment create
equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks the possibility of a new or different kind of
testing duration, and the ability to leave
in the BAST. The basic requirements, accident from any accident previously
including the applicable codes and
equipment in place following the data evaluated?
standards, for the configuration of the BAST collection period. These changes Response: No.
are unchanged. In addition, the change to the involve material which is specifically The proposed changes for removing the
ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not referenced in Section 2.D.(2) of the requirement to install temporary
alter the design of the CVS, which is COLs. This submittal requests approval instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line
currently limited in the design to 175 gallons of the license amendment necessary to during the monitoring of the pressurizer
per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC implement these changes. surge line for thermal stratification and
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. thermal cycling during hot functional testing
Consequently, because the BAST codes and
Basis for proposed no significant and during the first fuel cycle for the first
standards are unchanged and the CVS is hazards consideration determination: plant only, proposed changes to parameter
otherwise unchanged, there is no effect on As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the retention requirements, and proposed change
accidents previously evaluated in the licensee has provided its analysis of the to remove the pressurizer spray and surge
UFSAR. issue of no significant hazards line valve leakage requirement as described
Therefore, the proposed amendment does consideration, which is presented below in the current licensing basis maintain the
not create the possibility of a new or different with Nuclear Regulatory Commission required design functions, and are consistent
kind of accident. (NRC) staff edits in square brackets: with other Updated Final Safety Analysis
3. Does the proposed amendment involve Report (UFSAR) information. The proposed
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 1. Does the proposed amendment involve changes do not adversely affect the design
Response: No. a significant increase in the probability or requirements for the RCS, including the
The proposed change to the BAST piping consequences of an accident previously pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray
configuration and to the CVS makeup flow evaluated? lines. The proposed changes do not adversely
ITAAC does not alter any safety-related Response: No. affect the design function, support, design, or
equipment, applicable design codes, code The design functions of the [reactor coolant operation of mechanical and fluid systems.
compliance, design function, or safety system (RCS)] include providing an effective The proposed changes do not result in a new
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or reactor coolant pressure boundary. The failure mechanism or introduce any new
design basis acceptance limit is challenged or proposed changes for removing the accident precursors. No design function
exceeded by the proposed changes, and thus, requirement to install temporary described in the UFSAR is adversely affected
the margin of safety is not reduced. instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does during the monitoring of the pressurizer Therefore, the requested amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a surge line for thermal stratification and not create the possibility of a new or different
margin of safety from any accident thermal cycling during hot functional testing kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. and during the first fuel cycle for the first previously evaluated.
plant only, proposed changes to parameter 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
The NRC staff has reviewed the retention requirements, and proposed change a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
licensee’s analysis and, based on this to remove the pressurizer spray and surge l Response: No.
review, it appears that the three ine valve leakage requirement do not impact No safety analysis or design basis
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the existing design requirements for the RCS. acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff These changes are acceptable as they are exceeded by the proposed changes, and no
proposes to determine that the consistent with the commitments made for margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the
amendment request involves no the pressurizer surge line monitoring requested amendment does not involve a
program for the first plant only, and do not significant reduction in a margin of safety.
significant hazards consideration.
adversely affect the capability of the
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford The NRC staff has reviewed the
pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 lines to perform the required reactor coolant licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL pressure boundary design functions. review, it appears that the three
35203–2015. These proposed changes to the monitoring standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. of the pressurizer surge line for thermal satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
Markley. stratification and thermal cycling during hot proposes to determine that the
functional testing and during the first fuel amendment request involves no
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, cycle for the first plant only, proposed
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle significant hazards consideration.
changes to parameter retention requirements, Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford
Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, and proposed change to remove the
Burke County, Georgia Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
pressurizer spray and surge line valve
leakage requirement as described in the Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
Date of amendment request: August 35203–2015.
current licensing basis do not have an
31, 2016. A publicly-available version is adverse effect on any of the design functions NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-
in ADAMS under Accession No. of the systems. The proposed changes do not Herrity.
ML16244A253. affect the support, design, or operation of
Description of amendment request: mechanical and fluid systems required to
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
The amendment request proposes mitigate the consequences of an accident. Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
changes to the Updated Final Safety There is no change to plant systems or the Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4,
Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of response of systems to postulated accident Burke County, Georgia
departures from the incorporated plant- conditions. There is no change to the Date of amendment request: October
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
specific Design Control Document Tier predicted radioactive releases due to 14, 2016. Publicly-available version is in
2 information and a combined license postulated accident conditions. The plant
response to previously evaluated accidents or
ADAMS under Accession No.
(COL) License Condition which external events is not adversely affected, nor ML16288A810.
references one of the proposed changes. do the proposed changes create any new Description of amendment request:
Additionally, the proposed changes to accident precursors. The requested amendment requires a
the UFSAR eliminate pressurizer spray Therefore, the requested amendment does change to the Combined License (COL)
line monitoring during pressurizer surge not involve a significant increase in the Appendix A, as well as plant-specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_93107/page/11.svg)
![92874 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
Tier 2, Tier 2 *, and COL Appendix C component (SSC)] accident initiator or III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
(and corresponding plant-specific Tier initiating sequence of events considered in to Facility Operating Licenses and
1). The proposed changes would revise the design and licensing bases. There is no Combined Licenses
the licenses basis documents to add adverse effect on radioisotope barriers or the
release of radioactive materials. The During the period since publication of
design detail to the automatic the last biweekly notice, the
proposed amendment does not adversely
depressurization system (ADS) blocking Commission has issued the following
affect any accident, including the possibility
device and to add the blocking device of creating a new or different kind of accident amendments. The Commission has
to the design of the in-containment from any accident previously evaluated. determined for each of these
refueling water storage tank injection Therefore, the proposed changes do not amendments that the application
squib valves actuation logic. An create the possibility of a new or different complies with the standards and
exemption request relating to the type of accident from any accident requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
proposed changes to the AP1000 Design previously evaluated. of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Control Document Tier 1 is included 3. Does the proposed amendment involve Commission’s rules and regulations.
with the request. a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The Commission has made appropriate
Basis for proposed no significant Response: No. findings as required by the Act and the
hazards consideration determination: The blocking device is independent of Commission’s rules and regulations in
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the PMS processor hardware and software. It is
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
licensee has provided its analysis of the designed to allow for ADS and IRWST
injection actuations when the plant
the license amendment.
issue of no significant hazards A notice of consideration of issuance
parameters indicate an actual [loss of coolant
consideration, which is presented below of amendment to facility operating
accident (LOCA)] event. Therefore, the ADS
with Nuclear Regulatory Commission license or combined license, as
and IRWST are still able to perform their
(NRC) staff edits in square brackets: safety functions when required. A postulated applicable, proposed no significant
1. Does the proposed amendment involve failure of a blocking device which would hazards consideration determination,
a significant increase in the probability or prevent necessary ADS and IRWST injection and opportunity for a hearing in
consequences of an accident previously valve opening would be detected by the connection with these actions, was
evaluated? proposed periodic surveillance testing within published in the Federal Register as
Response: No. the [Technical Specifications (TS)]. Failure of indicated.
The AP1000 accident analysis previously the ADS actuation or IRWST injection valve Unless otherwise indicated, the
evaluated a loss of coolant accident caused opening in a division could also result from Commission has determined that these
by an inadvertent ADS valve actuation. concurrent failure of the two Core Makeup amendments satisfy the criteria for
Adding design detail to the ADS blocking Tanks (CMTs) level sensors in one division,
device, and applying the blocking device to
categorical exclusion in accordance
with both sensors reading above the blocking with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
the [in-containment refueling water storage setpoint. Failures of the level sensors would
tank (IRWST)] injection valves, does not to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
be immediately detected due to the impact statement or environmental
impact this analysis. Using a blocking device deviations in redundant measurements.
on the ADS and IRWST injection valves is a assessment need be prepared for these
Furthermore, the proposed TS actions require
design feature which further minimizes the
that the four divisions of blocking devices be
amendments. If the Commission has
probability of a loss of coolant accident prepared an environmental assessment
capable of automatically unblocking for each
caused by a spurious valve actuation. under the special circumstances
Furthermore, because the blocking device is CMT. In addition, the TS require that the
blocking devices be unblocked in plant provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
designed to prevent a spurious valve made a determination based on that
actuation due to a software [common cause modes which allow for the operability of less
failure (CCF)] and does not adversely impact than two CMTs. assessment, it is so indicated.
any existing design feature, it does not The blocking device will continue to For further details with respect to the
involve a significant increase in the comply with the existing [Updated Final action see (1) the applications for
probability of an accident previously Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] regulatory amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
evaluated. requirements and industry standards. The the Commission’s related letter, Safety
The proposed amendment does not affect proposed changes would not affect any Evaluation and/or Environmental
the prevention and mitigation of abnormal safety-related design code, function, design Assessment as indicated. All of these
events, e.g., accidents, anticipated operation analysis, safety analysis input or result, or items can be accessed as described in
occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine existing design/safety margin. No safety the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
missiles, and fires or their safety or design analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
analyses. This change does not involve criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
requested changes. Therefore the proposed document.
containment of radioactive isotopes or any
adverse effect on a fission product barrier. amendment does not involve a significant Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
There is no impact on previously evaluated reduction in a margin of safety. Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power
accidents source terms. The [protection and Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London
safety monitoring system (PMS)] is still able The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this County, Connecticut
to actuate ADS and IRWST injection valves
for plant conditions which require their review, it appears that the three Date of amendment request: January
actuation. Therefore, the proposed standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 26, 2016, as supplemented by letter
amendment does not involve a significant satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff dated July 14, 2016.
increase in the consequences of an accident proposes to determine that the Brief description of amendment: The
previously evaluated amendment revised the MPS2 licensing
2. Does the proposed amendment create
amendment request involves no
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
significant hazards consideration. basis to change the spent fuel pool heat
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
load analysis description contained in
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford
evaluated? the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Response: No. Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
The proposed changes do not involve a Effective date: As of the date of
35203–2015. issuance and shall be implemented
new failure mechanism or malfunction,
which affects an SSC accident initiator, or NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon- within 60 days from the date of
interface with any [structure, system, or Herrity. issuance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_93107/page/12.svg)
![92880 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
able to offer assistance in using unlisted Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
software. Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Effective date: As of the date of
Once a participant has obtained a Participants filing a document in this issuance and shall be implemented
digital ID certificate and a docket has manner are responsible for serving the within 30 days of issuance.
been created, the participant can then document on all other participants. Amendment No.: 160. A publicly-
submit a petition. Submissions should Filing is considered complete by first- available version is in ADAMS under
be in Portable Document Format (PDF). class mail as of the time of deposit in Accession No. ML16333A000;
Additional guidance on PDF the mail, or by courier, express mail, or documents related to this amendment
submissions is available on the NRC’s expedited delivery service upon are listed in the Safety Evaluation
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ depositing the document with the enclosed with the amendment.
site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A provider of the service. A presiding Renewed Facility Operating License
filing is considered complete at the time officer, having granted an exemption No. NPF–69: Amendment revised the
the documents are submitted through request from using E-Filing, may require Renewed Facility Operating License and
the NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, a participant or party to use E-Filing if Technical Specifications.
an electronic filing must be submitted to the presiding officer subsequently Public comments requested as to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 determines that the reason for granting proposed no significant hazards
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. the exemption from use of E-Filing no consideration (NSHC): No.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the E- longer exists. The Commission’s related evaluation
Filing system time-stamps the document Documents submitted in adjudicatory of the amendment, finding of emergency
and sends the submitter an email notice proceedings will appear in the NRC’s circumstances, state consultation, and
confirming receipt of the document. The electronic hearing docket which is final NSHC determination are contained
E-Filing system also distributes an email available to the public at http:// in a Safety Evaluation dated November
notice that provides access to the ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 29, 2016.
document to the NRC’s Office of the pursuant to an order of the Commission, Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
General Counsel and any others who or the presiding officer. Participants are Associate General Counsel, Exelon
have advised the Office of the Secretary requested not to include personal Generation Company, LLC, 4300
that they wish to participate in the privacy information, such as social Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
proceeding, so that the filer need not security numbers, home addresses, or NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas
serve the documents on those home phone numbers in their filings, Pickett.
participants separately. Therefore, unless an NRC regulation or other law Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8 day of
applicants and other participants (or requires submission of such December, 2016.
their counsel or representative) must information. However, in some For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
apply for and receive a digital ID instances, a petition will require George A. Wilson, Deputy,
certificate before a hearing petition to including information on local Director, Division of Operating Reactor
intervene is filed so that they can obtain residence in order to demonstrate a Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
access to the document via the E-Filing proximity assertion of interest in the Regulation.
system. proceeding. With respect to copyrighted [FR Doc. 2016–30438 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am]
A person filing electronically using works, except for limited excerpts that BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
may seek assistance by contacting the filings and would constitute a Fair Use
NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk application, participants are requested NUCLEAR REGULATORY
through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located not to include copyrighted materials in COMMISSION
on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// their submission. [NRC–2016–0001]
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- The Commission will issue a notice or
submittals.html, by email to order granting or denying a hearing Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- request or intervention petition,
free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC designating the issues for any hearing DATES: December 19, 26, 2016, January
Electronic Filing Help Desk is available that will be held and designating the 2, 9, 16, 23, 2017.
between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern Presiding Officer. A notice granting a PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Time, Monday through Friday, hearing will be published in the Federal Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
excluding government holidays. Register and served on the parties to the Maryland.
Participants who believe that they hearing. STATUS: Public and Closed.
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Week of December 19, 2016
exemption request, in accordance with Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point There are no meetings scheduled for
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, the week of December 19, 2016.
filing stating why there is good cause for New York
not filing electronically and requesting Week of December 26, 2016—Tentative
Date of amendment request:
authorization to continue to submit November 26, 2016. There are no meetings scheduled for
documents in paper format. Such filings Brief description of amendment: The the week of December 26, 2016.
must be submitted by: (1) First class amendment revised the High Pressure Week of January 2, 2017—Tentative
mail addressed to the Office of the Core Spray system and Reactor Core
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Isolation Cooling system actuation There are no meetings scheduled for
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, instrumentation technical specifications the week of January 2, 2017.
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: by adding a footnote indicating that the Week of January 9, 2017—Tentative
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or injection functions of Drywell Pressure-
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited High and Manual Initiation are not Friday, January 13, 2017
delivery service to the Office of the required to be operable under low 9:00 a.m. Briefing on Operator
Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, reactor pressure conditions. Licensing Program (Public Meeting)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_93107/page/18.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 09:09:57
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 09:09:57
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Biweekly notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be filed by January 19, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by February 21, 2017. | |
| Contact | Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 92863 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR