82 FR 49234 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 204 (October 24, 2017)

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 September 26, 2017, to October 06, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2017.

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49234-49247]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22680]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0208]


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 September 26, 2017, to October 06, 2017. 
The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by November 24, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by December 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0208. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: OWFN-2-A13, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0208 facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0208.
     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-2017-0208, 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. 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

[[Page 49235]]

margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each 
amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment 
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later 
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition 
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the 
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and 
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, 
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, 
or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need 
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility 
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local 
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof 
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a

[[Page 49236]]

limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such 
sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
1, Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: August 14, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17226A207.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would add Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by adding 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-427, Revision 2, 
``Allowance for Non-

[[Page 49237]]

Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System 
Operability.'' The Notice of Availability of this TS improvement and 
the model application were published in the Federal Register on October 
3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as part of the Consolidated Line Item 
Improvement Process (CLIIP).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee affirmed 
the applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration 
determination, which is presented below:

    Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident 
Previously Evaluated.
    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due 
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. 
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional 
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and 
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for 
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, 
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the 
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the 
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions 
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a 
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change 
will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility 
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when 
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is 
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or 
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further 
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable 
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating 
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those 
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety 
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated 
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed 
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory 
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify 
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated 
upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the 
management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is 
insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of 
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage 
probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release 
probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety 
Evaluation. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the above analysis and, based on this 
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, 
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East, 
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
2, Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: August 14, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17226A210.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would add Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by adding 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, 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 Operability.'' The Notice of Availability of this TS 
improvement and the model application were published in the Federal 
Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as part of the Consolidated 
Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee affirmed 
the applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration 
determination, which is presented below:

    Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident 
Previously Evaluated.
    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due 
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. 
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional 
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and 
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for 
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, 
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the 
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the 
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions 
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a 
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change 
will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility 
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when 
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is 
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or 
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further 
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable 
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating 
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those 
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety 
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated 
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed 
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory 
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify 
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated 
upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the

[[Page 49238]]

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 above analysis and, based on this 
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, 
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East, 
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-219 and 72-15, Oyster 
Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: August 29, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17241A065.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station site emergency plan (SEP) and 
emergency action level (EAL) scheme for the permanently defueled 
condition.
    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 the emergency plan and EAL scheme do not 
impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components 
(SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or 
precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed 
changes do not prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and 
emergency response organization (ERO) to perform their intended 
functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that 
will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents 
is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents can no 
longer occur and the probability of the few remaining credible 
accidents are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
    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 reduce the scope of the SEP and EAL scheme 
commensurate with the hazards associated with a permanently shutdown 
and defueled facility. The proposed changes do not involve 
installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment, 
so that no new equipment failure modes are introduced. In addition, 
the proposed changes do not result in a change to the way that the 
equipment or facility is operated so that no new or different kinds 
of accident initiators are created.
    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.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are 
associated with the SEP and EAL scheme and do not impact operation 
of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change 
does not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes 
do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no 
accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed 
changes. The Post Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) will continue to 
provide the necessary response staff with the appropriate guidance 
to protect the health and safety of the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: August 7, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17228A042.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
replace existing Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to 
``operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel'' 
(OPDRVs) with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water 
inventory control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 
2.1.1.3 requires RPV water level to be greater than the top of active 
irradiated fuel. The proposed changes are based on TS Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water 
Inventory 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 amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold 
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously 
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to 
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no 
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed 
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an 
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water 
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls 
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of 
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These 
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. 
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose 
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected 
draining event.
    The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements 
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be 
operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement 
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does 
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining 
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available 
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the

[[Page 49239]]

event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide 
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated 
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of 
water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or 
filtration would be available if needed.
    The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that 
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an 
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS 
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a 
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated 
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond 
to a draining event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design 
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some 
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs 
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or 
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those 
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no 
different than if those systems were unable to perform their 
function under the current TS requirements.
    The event of concern under the current requirements and the 
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change 
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different 
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design 
and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do 
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is 
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements 
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water 
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel 
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that 
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one 
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based 
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The 
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth 
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements 
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain 
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety 
and to add safety margin.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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 30, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17242A279.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
changes to combined license (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 
1) Table 2.6.3-3 to revise Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance 
Criteria (ITAAC) involving the Class 1E dc and uninterruptible power 
supply system (IDS). The proposed COL Appendix C (and plant-specific 
design control document (DCD) Tier 1) changes require additional 
changes to corresponding Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 8, ``Electric Power.'' Because this 
proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the 
Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 DCD, the licensee also requested 
an exemption from the requirements of the generic DCD Tier 1 in 
accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
    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 revises COL Appendix C, 
plant[hyphen]specific Tier 1, and UFSAR information concerning 
design commitments and ITAAC related to IDS functionality. The 
proposed change supports verification of the acceptability of the 
voltage transfer across applicable IDS circuits supplying power to 
Class 1E MOVs.
    This change does not affect the design details of the IDS, 
including the Class 1E battery banks and the MOVs that they support. 
The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 2.6.3, Design Commitment 4.i); COL 
Appendix C Table 2.6.3[hyphen]3, item 4.i); and UFSAR Subsection 
8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that IDS can deliver adequate voltage to the 
motor terminals of Class 1E powered MOVs under design basis 
conditions. Therefore, the proposed changes meet the intent of the 
ITAAC and do not change the design or functionality of any 
safety[hyphen]related structure, system or component (SSC). The 
proposed change does not affect the design functions of plant 
systems. The proposed change does not affect plant electrical 
systems, and does 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 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 change revises COL Appendix C, 
plant[hyphen]specific Tier 1, and UFSAR information concerning 
design commitments and ITAAC related to IDS functionality. The 
proposed change supports verification of the acceptability of the 
voltage transfer across applicable IDS circuits supplying power to 
Class 1E MOVs.
    The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 2.6.3, Design Commitment 4.i); 
COL Appendix C Table 2.6.3[hyphen]3, item 4.i) and UFSAR Subsection 
8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that IDS can deliver adequate voltage to the 
motor terminals of Class 1E powered MOVs under design basis 
conditions. The proposed changes do not change the design or 
functionality of safety[hyphen]related SSCs. The proposed change 
does not affect plant electrical systems, and does not affect the 
design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and 
fluid systems. The proposed change does not result in a new failure 
mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design 
function described in the UFSAR is 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?

[[Page 49240]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises COL Appendix C, 
plant[hyphen]specific Tier 1, and UFSAR information concerning 
design commitments and ITAAC related to IDS functionality. The 
proposed change supports verification of the acceptability of the 
voltage transfer across applicable IDS circuits supplying power to 
Class 1E MOVs.
    The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 2.6.3, Design Commitment 4.i); 
COL Appendix C Table 2.6.3[hyphen]3, item 4.i) and UFSAR Subsection 
8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that under design basis conditions IDS can 
deliver adequate voltage to the motor terminals of Class 1E powered 
MOVs. Therefore, the proposed changes meet the intent of the ITAAC 
and do not reduce a margin of safety. 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: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A351.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to 
depart from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (which includes the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) 
Tier 2 information) and involves related changes to plant-specific Tier 
1 (and associated Combined License (COL) Appendix C) information, and 
COL Appendix A Technical Specifications. Specifically, the requested 
amendment proposes changes to the plant-specific nuclear island non-
radioactive ventilation system (VBS), the main control room emergency 
habitability system (VES), and post-accident operator dose analyses. 
These changes are proposed to maintain compliance with General Design 
Criterion (GDC)-19, which requires that main control room personnel 
dose does not exceed 5 roentgen equivalent man total effective dose 
equivalent for the duration of a design basis accident. Because this 
proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the 
Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 DCD, the licensee also requested 
an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in 
accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
    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 AP1000 accident analyses describe various design basis 
accidents to demonstrate compliance with the acceptance criteria for 
these events. The acceptance criteria for the various accidents are 
based on meeting the relevant regulations, general design criteria, 
the Standard Review Plan, and are a function of the anticipated 
frequency of occurrence of the event and potential radiological 
consequences to the public. As such, each design-basis event is 
categorized accordingly based on these considerations. The proposed 
changes do not affect the accident frequency designations as 
previously evaluated. Instead, the changes ensure that the control 
room shielding design will meet the operator habitability 
requirements under such accidents. Further, the proposed changes do 
not involve any components that could initiate an event by means of 
component or system failure. The changes do not alter design 
features available during normal operation or anticipated 
operational occurrences. The changes do not adversely impact 
accident source term parameters or affect any release paths used in 
the safety analyses, which could increase radiological dose 
consequences. The proposed changes would not increase the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the plant-
specific Design Control Document (DCD). Offsite doses are not 
adversely affected by the changes proposed.
    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 would not introduce a new failure mode, 
fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive 
material release. The proposed changes do not alter the design, 
configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard 
functional capabilities of the equipment. Instead, the changes 
modify the manner in which the radiological consequences of the 
existing design basis accidents are evaluated.
    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.
    Safety margins are applied at many levels to the design and 
licensing basis functions and to the controlling values of 
parameters to account for various uncertainties and to avoid 
exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The proposed changes 
ultimately result in dose values that meet 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 
A, General Design Criterion (GDC)-19. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect any safety-related equipment or other design 
functions, design code compliance, 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.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: September 22, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17265A822.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
changes to combined license Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS). 
The proposed changes add new TS 3.1.10, Rod Withdrawal Test Exception--
MODE 5, and modify TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.7, to 
allow rod movement and rod drop time testing under cold conditions 
(MODE 5). Additionally, the LCO Applicability of TS 3.4.8, Minimum 
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Flow, is revised to reflect its safety 
analysis basis.
    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

[[Page 49241]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no design changes associated with the proposed 
amendment. All design, material, and construction standards that 
were applicable prior to this amendment request will continue to be 
applicable.
    The Plant Control System (PLS), Reactor Coolant System (RCS), 
Chemical and Volume Control System (CVS), and Protection and Safety 
Monitoring System (PMS) will continue to function in a manner 
consistent with the existing plant design basis. There will be no 
changes to the PLS, RCS, CVS, or PMS operating limits.
    The proposed amendment will not affect accident initiators or 
precursors or alter the design, conditions, and configuration of the 
facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated and 
maintained, with respect to such initiators or precursors.
    The proposed amendment will preclude reactor core criticality 
during the use of new TS 3.1.10. The proposed amendment will not 
alter the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to 
perform their specified safety functions.
    Accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met 
with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect the 
source term, containment isolation, or radiological release 
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter 
any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological 
consequence evaluations in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR).
    The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will 
continue to be met.
    The proposed amendment adds a new test exception TS 3.1.10, 
revises TS LCO 3.0.7 to reference the new TS 3.1.10, and modifies 
the LCO Applicability of TS 3.4.8 to be consistent with the purpose 
of that TS as an initial condition of the inadvertent boron dilution 
analyses, but does not physically alter any safety-related systems.
    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.
    With respect to any new or different kind of accident, there are 
no proposed design changes nor are there any changes in the method 
by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its specified safety 
function. The proposed change will not affect the normal method of 
plant operation or change any operating parameters. No equipment 
performance requirements will be affected. The proposed change will 
not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses.
    The proposed amendment adds a new test exception TS 3.1.10, 
revises TS LCO 3.0.7 to reference the new TS 3.1.10, and modifies 
the LCO Applicability of TS 3.4.8 to be consistent with the purpose 
of that TS as an initial condition of the inadvertent boron dilution 
analyses. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
modification of the plant.
    No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a 
result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or 
challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this 
amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to 
effect the accomplishment of protection functions. No instrument 
setpoints or system response times are affected. None of the 
acceptance criteria for any accident analysis will be changed. The 
proposed amendment will have no impact on the radiological 
consequences of a design basis accident.
    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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: September 22, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17265A787.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to revise Tier 2* information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR), specifically to modify the licensing requirements for 
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Class 1 Piping 
component analysis from limited to design by rule evaluation as 
described in ASME Section III, NB-3600 to include the ability to 
perform design by analysis evaluations, as described in ASME Section 
III, NB-3200.
    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's 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 proposed change describes how the ASME Class 1 piping 
components are evaluated for stress and functional capability. The 
ASME Class 1 piping components are evaluated against ASME Section 
III to demonstrate that the components meet the allowables required 
by the ASME Code. The ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The 
change allows the ASME Class 1 piping components to be evaluated by 
not only ASME Section III, NB-3600, but also, in situations where 
the simplified analysis results do not satisfy the requirements, 
ability is added for an evaluation using the more detailed method of 
ASME Section III, NB-3200. This is performed in accordance with ASME 
Section III, NB-3630(c). This method will continue to demonstrate 
that the piping components meet acceptance criteria and will perform 
as required in the design. The proposed change does not affect the 
operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or 
different kind of accident, or alter an [structure, system, and 
component (SSC)] such that a new accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events is created.
    The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the 
ASME Class 1 piping components or the SSCs to which the piping is 
connected. The probabilities of accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are 
not affected.
    The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of 
mechanical and fluid systems. The change does not impact the 
support, design, or operation of any safety-related structures. 
There is no change to plant systems or response of systems to 
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted 
radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident 
conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or 
external events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed 
change create any new accident precursors.
    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 change describes how the ASME Class 1 piping 
components are evaluated for stress and functional capability. The 
ASME Class 1 piping components are evaluated against ASME Section 
III to demonstrate that the components meet the allowables required 
by the ASME Code. The ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The 
change allows the ASME Class 1 piping components to be evaluated by 
not only ASME Section III, NB-3600, but also, in situations where 
the simplified analysis results do not satisfy the requirements, 
ability is added for an evaluation using the

[[Page 49242]]

more detailed method of ASME Section III, NB-3200. This is performed 
in accordance with ASME Section III, NB-3630(c). This method will 
continue to demonstrate that the piping components meet acceptance 
criteria and will perform as required in the design.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect the design 
function of the ASME Class 1 piping components, the structures and 
systems in which the piping components are used, or 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 non-safety related equipment. This activity does 
not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new 
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of 
events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change describes how the ASME Class 1 piping 
components are evaluated for stress and functional capability. The 
ASME Class 1 piping components are evaluated against ASME Section 
III to demonstrate that the components meet the allowables required 
by the ASME Code. The ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The 
change allows the ASME Class 1 piping components to be evaluated by 
not only ASME Section III, NB-3600, but also, in situations where 
the simplified analysis results do not satisfy the requirements, 
ability is added for an evaluation using the more detailed method of 
ASME Section III, NB-3200. This is performed in accordance with ASME 
Section III, NB-3630(c). This method will continue to demonstrate 
that the piping components meet acceptance criteria and will perform 
as required in the design.
    Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by this change, no significant 
margin of safety is reduced.
    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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke 
County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: September 8, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17251A458.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment requires 
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form 
of departures from the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 
information and involves changes to the VEGP Units 3 and 4 combined 
license (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications. Specifically, the 
proposed amendment would revise the licensing basis information for the 
design of the protection and safety monitoring system (PMS) automatic 
reactor trips and the crediting of PMS automatic reactor trips 
necessary to prevent exceeding fuel design limits including the power 
range high neutron flux (high setpoint), the power range high positive 
flux rate trip, the overpower [Delta]T trip, and the overtemperature 
[Delta]T trip. Also, includes changes to the COL Appendix A Technical 
Specifications for maintaining moderator temperature coefficient and 
maintaining power distributions within the required absolute power 
generation limits.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of 
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter 
any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the ability of the PMS automatic reactor trips to perform the 
required safety function to trip the reactor when necessary to 
protect fuel design limits, and do not adversely affect the 
probability of inadvertent operation or failure of the PMS automatic 
reactor trips. The proposed changes to the methods for maintaining 
moderator temperature coefficient within the required reactivity 
control limits and maintaining power generation within the required 
power distribution limits do not result in any increase in 
probability of an analyzed accident occurring, and prevent power 
oscillations and maintain the initial conditions and operating 
limits required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal 
operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that fuel 
design limits are not exceeded for events resulting in positive 
reactivity insertion and reactivity feedback effects.
    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 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 ability of the PMS automatic reactor trips to perform the 
required safety function to trip the reactor when necessary to 
protect fuel design limits, and do not adversely affect the 
probability of inadvertent operation or failure of the PMS automatic 
reactor trips. The proposed changes to the methods for maintaining 
moderator temperature coefficient within the required reactivity 
control limits and maintaining power generation within the required 
power distribution limits do not result in the possibility of an 
accident occurring, and prevent power oscillations and maintain the 
initial conditions and operating limits required by the accident 
analysis, and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated 
operational occurrences, so that fuel design limits are not exceeded 
for events resulting in positive reactivity insertion and reactivity 
feedback effects.
    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 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.
    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The 
proposed changes to the PMS reactor trip system instrumentation, 
reactivity control systems, and power distribution limits maintain 
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing 
requirements of the UFSAR. The proposed changes maintain the initial 
conditions and operating limits required by the accident analysis, 
and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated operational 
occurrences, so that the existing fuel design limits specified in 
the UFSAR are not exceeded for events resulting in positive 
reactivity insertion and reactivity feedback effects. Therefore, the 
proposed changes

[[Page 49243]]

satisfy the same safety functions in accordance with the same 
requirements 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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A444.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to depart from the approved AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) by 
proposing changes to various plant-specific Tier 1 (and Combined 
License (COL) Appendix C) information and Tier 2 material contained 
within the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to modify 
design details of the containment recirculation cooling system (VCS) 
and the radiologically controlled area ventilation system (VAS). 
Specifically, if approved, the changes to the VCS address changes in 
total required design air flow rates and total design cooling and 
heating requirements as a result of the final design of the VCS, and 
the changes to the VAS add a fourth differential pressure instrument 
and alarm functions and reduce the fuel handling area ventilation 
subsystem design flow rate and would address the capability of the 
supply and exhaust duct isolation damper to close under specific 
conditions. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an 
exemption from elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part 
52, Appendix D, design certification rule is also requested for the 
plant-specific DCD Tier 1 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 design functions of the containment recirculation cooling 
system (VCS) include control of the air temperature and reduction of 
humidity in the containment to provide a suitable environment for 
equipment operability during normal power operation, and for 
personnel accessibility and equipment operability during refueling 
and shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS address changes in 
total required design air flow rates and total design cooling and 
heating requirements, thereby maintaining these design functions.
    The design functions of the radiologically controlled area 
ventilation system (VAS) include prevention of the unmonitored 
release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent 
plant areas, by maintaining a negative pressure differential in 
radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building, 
maintaining occupied areas and access and equipment areas within 
their design temperature range, and providing outside air for plant 
personnel. The proposed changes for the VAS enable pressure 
differential monitoring and control for an area of the auxiliary 
building that is physically remote and separate from the currently 
monitored and controlled areas, and provide VAS supply air flow rate 
and total ventilation flow through the auxiliary building fuel 
handling area required to maintain occupied areas and access and 
equipment areas within their design temperature range and to provide 
outside air for plant personnel, maintaining these design functions.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. There are no inadvertent operations 
or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as accident initiators or 
part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously 
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
    These proposed changes to the VCS and VAS design 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. The proposed changes do not affect the 
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., 
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine 
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the 
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, 
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes revise the VCS 
and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis to enable 
the systems to perform required design functions. 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 
resulting 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 to the VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related 
design function. 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 by the proposed changes, and no margin 
of safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

[[Page 49244]]

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.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: June 14, 2017.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments modified the 
completion date for implementation of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security 
Plan (CSP). The proposed amendments would extend the CSP Milestone 8 
completion date from September 30, 2017, to December 31, 2017.
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by September 30, 2017.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-204, Unit 2-204, and Unit 3-204. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17254A499; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: 
The amendments revised the Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 18, 2017 (82 FR 
32878).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment requests: December 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant 
Circulation--Low Water Level,'' to add Note 1 to the Limiting Condition 
for Operation (LCO) Section of TS 3.9.5 to allow the securing of the 
operating train of RHR for up to 15 minutes to support switching 
operating trains. The allowance is restricted to three conditions: (a) 
The core outlet temperature is maintained greater than 10 degrees 
Fahrenheit below saturation temperature; (b) no operations are 
permitted that would cause an introduction of coolant into the Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) with boron concentration less than that required 
to meet the minimum required boron concentration of LCO 3.9.1; and (c) 
no draining operations to further reduce RCS water volume are 
permitted. Additionally, the amendments would modify the LCO Section of 
TS 3.9.5 to add Note 2 which would allow one required RHR loop to be 
inoperable for up to two hours for surveillance testing, provided that 
the other RHR loop is operable and in operation. These proposed changes 
are consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Travelers 
TSTF-349-A, Revision 1, ``Add Note to LCO 3.9.5 Allowing Shutdown 
Cooling Loops Removal from Operation'', TSTF-361-A, Revision 2, ``Allow 
standby [Shutdown Cooling] SDC/RHR/[Decay Heat Removal] DHR loop to be 
inoperable to support testing,'' and TSTF-438-A, Revision 0, ``Clarify 
Exception Notes to be Consistent with the Requirement Being Excepted.''
    Date of issuance: September 29, 2017.
    Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of its 
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1) and 289 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17249A135; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and 
technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR 
19101).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized the 
adoption of a revised alternative source term in the updated final 
safety analysis report to support the transition from an 18-month to a 
24-month fuel cycle.
    Date of issuance: September 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 255. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17205A233; 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.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81 
FR 83875).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 
31092).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a

[[Page 49245]]

Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 (GGNS), Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of application for amendment: March 29, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment made an 
administrative change to the licensee name. Effective November 10, 
2016, South Mississippi Electric Power Association changed its company 
name from ``South Mississippi Electric Power Association'' to 
``Cooperative Energy, a Mississippi electric cooperative.'' The 
corporate name was changed for commercial reasons. The changes proposed 
herein to the GGNS operating license solely reflects the changed 
licensee name. This name change is purely administrative in nature. 
This request does not involve a transfer of control or of an interest 
in the license.
    Date of issuance: October 4, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 213. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17240A232; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment 
revised the Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23624).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: January 25, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated. March 31, 2016, March 2, and June 1, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the technical 
specification (TS) associated with the primary containment leakage rate 
testing program. Specifically, the amendment extend the frequencies for 
performance of the Type A containment integrated leakage rate test and 
the Type C containment isolation valve leakage rate test, which are 
required by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, ``Primary Reactor Containment 
Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.'' The amendment also 
deletes the requirement in TS 5.5.13 to perform Type A testing by 2008.
    Date of issuance: September 26, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No(s): 214. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML17237A010; documents related to this amendment 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016 (81 FR 
28895). The supplemental letters dated March 2, 2017, and June 1, 2017, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick 
Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: December 8, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
implementation date of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security Plan from 
December 15, 2017, to June 15, 2019.
    Date of issuance: September 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 316. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17235A540; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR 
8869).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment (1) updated Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.4.2 for the current number of fuel assemblies and 
number of reactor cores that are stored in Spent Fuel Pool A; (2) 
revised TS 6.1.2 requirements for the Chief Nuclear Officer to 
eliminate the annual management directive to all unit personnel 
responsible for the control room command function; and (3) deleted the 
TS 6.2.2.2.d footnote that references Control Room Supervisors who do 
not possess a Senior Reactor Operator NRC License.
    Date of issuance: October 5, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 293. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17233A138; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR 
35840).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 22, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments updated the St. 
Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1, and St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to relocate the Component Cyclic or Transient 
Limits Program requirements to the Administrative Controls sections of 
the TSs. The amendments also deleted the Component Cyclic or Transient 
Limits TS tables, which detail the allowable transient limits, and will 
place these tables in licensee-controlled documents.
    Date of issuance: October 5, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.

[[Page 49246]]

    Amendment Nos.: 241 and 192. A publicly available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17235A565; documents related to this 
amendment 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 TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82 
FR 12133).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 18, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications for the Engineered Safety Features Actuation 
System instrumentation. The amendments modified the completion times 
for required actions for inoperable instrumentation channels for 
auxiliary feedwater actuation on bus stripping and on trip of all main 
feedwater pump breakers.
    Date of issuance: September 28, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 276 and 271. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17209A319. Documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 
13666). The supplemental letter dated May 18, 2017, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated September 28, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, (VCSNS) Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 16, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 7, 2016, February 6, 2017, June 22, 2017, July 6, 
2017, and September 27, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) \3/4\.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' 
and TS \3/4\.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 
Instrumentation,'' to implement the Allowed Outage Time, Bypass Test 
Time, and Surveillance Frequency changes approved by the NRC in WCAP-
15376-P-A, Rev. 1, ``Risk-Informed Assessment of the Reactor Trip 
System (RTS) and Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) 
Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and 
Completion Times.''
    Date of issuance: October 4, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 209. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17206A412, documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR 
21601). The supplemental letters dated March 7, 2016, February 6, 2017, 
June 22, 2017, July 6, 2017, and September 27, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
requirements on control and shutdown rods, and rod and bank position 
indication in Technical Specifications (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group 
Alignment Limits,'' TS 3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits,'' TS 
3.1.6, ``Control Bank Insertion Limits,'' and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position 
Indication'' consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
approved Technical Specification Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-547, 
Revision 1, ``Clarification of Rod Position Requirements'' dated March 
4, 2016.
    Date of issuance: October 2, 2017.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Farley Unit 1--214, Farley Unit 2--211, VEGP Unit 
1--193, VEGP Unit 2--176. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML17214A546; documents related to these amendments 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-68, and 
NPF-81: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses 
and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR 
8872).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN), Limestone County, 
Alabama

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

    Date of amendment request: April 5, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised technical 
specification surveillance requirements (SRs) that required operating 
ventilation

[[Page 49247]]

systems with charcoal filters for 10 hours each month. Specifically, 
BFN SRs 3.6.4.3.1 and 3.7.3.1, and WBN SRs 3.6.9.1 and 3.7.12.1 are 
revised, consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System 
Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month,'' to 
require operation of the systems for 15 continuous minutes every 31 
days.
    Date of issuance: October 2, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 300 (Unit 1), 324 (Unit 2), and 284 (Unit 3) for 
BFN; and 115 (Unit 1) and 15 (Unit 2) for WBN. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17215A243; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluations enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and 
DPR-68 for BFN; and Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-90 and 
NPF-96 for WBN: Amendments revised the RFOLs and FOLs and technical 
specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR 
26139).
    The Commission's related evaluations of the amendments are 
contained in Safety Evaluations dated October 2, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of October 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Benner,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-22680 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P