38714 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 

Dated: August 9, 2017. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17166 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0175] 

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 July 18 to 

July 31, 2017. The last biweekly notice 

was published on August 1, 2017. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

September 14, 2017. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by October 16, 

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–2017–0175. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

TWFN–8–D36M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0175, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject, when contacting the NRC 

about the availability of information for 

this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0175. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

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– 

0175, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject, in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. If 

the Commission takes action prior to the 

expiration of either the comment period 

or the notice period, it will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

issuance. If the Commission makes a 

final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 38715 

The Commission expects that the need 

to take this action will occur very 

infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

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, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may participate as a non-party 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who is not a party to the proceeding and 

is not affiliated with or represented by 

a party may, at the discretion of the 

presiding officer, be permitted to make 

a limited appearance pursuant to the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 

making a limited appearance may make 

an oral or written statement of his or her 

position on the issues but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to the 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the presiding officer. Details 

regarding the opportunity to make a 

limited appearance will be provided by 

the presiding officer if such sessions are 

scheduled. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing and petition for 

leave to intervene (petition), any motion 

or other document filed in the 

proceeding prior to the submission of a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities that 

request to participate under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 

with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 

77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Detailed guidance on 

making electronic submissions may be 

found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the 

NRC’s Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may not submit paper copies of their 

filings unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

38716 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital 

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

submissions and access the E-Filing 

system for any proceeding in which it 

is participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a petition or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the hearing in this proceeding 

if the Secretary has not already 

established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

getting-started.html. Once a participant 

has obtained a digital ID certificate and 

a docket has been created, the 

participant can then submit 

adjudicatory documents. Submissions 

must be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF 

submissions is available on the NRC’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A 

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an 

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document 

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the document on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed so that they can 

obtain access to the documents via the 

E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted by: (1) First class 

mail addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

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. 

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 

(PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of amendment request: June 22, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17173A877. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

PVNGS Technical Specifications (TSs) 

to eliminate TS Section 5.5.8, ‘‘Inservice 

Testing Program.’’ A new defined term, 

‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ will be 

added to the TS definitions section. 

This request is consistent with 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–545, Revision 3, 

‘‘TS Inservice Testing Program Removal 

& Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] 

Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 

Testing.’’ The proposed change 

eliminates the PVNGS TS, Section 5.5.8, 

to remove requirements duplicated in 

the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers Code for Operations and 

Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants 

(ASME OM Code) Code Case OMN–20, 

‘‘Inservice Test Frequency.’’ 

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 Chapter 5, 

Administrative Controls, Section 5.5, 

Programs and Manuals, by eliminating the 

Inservice Testing Program specification. 

Requirements in the IST [Inservice Testing] 

Program are removed, as they are duplicative 

of requirements in the ASME OM Code, as 

clarified by Code Case OMN–20, Inservice 

Test Frequency. Other requirements in 

Section 5.5.8, Inservice Testing Program are 

eliminated because the NRC has determined 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 38717 

their inclusion in the TS is contrary to 

regulations. A new defined term, Inservice 

Testing Program, is added which references 

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f). 

Performance of inservice testing is not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of 

occurrence of an accident is not significantly 

affected by the proposed change. Inservice 

test periods under Code Case OMN–20 are 

equivalent to the current testing period 

allowed by the TS with the exception that 

testing periods greater than two years may be 

extended by up to six months to facilitate test 

scheduling and consideration of plant 

operating conditions that may not be suitable 

for performance of the required testing. The 

testing period extension will not affect the 

ability of the components to mitigate any 

accident previously evaluated as the 

components are required to be operable 

during the testing period extension. 

Performance of inservice tests utilizing the 

allowances in Code Case OMN–20 will not 

significantly affect the reliability of the tested 

components. As a result, the availability of 

the affected components, as well as their 

ability to mitigate the consequences of 

accidents previously evaluated, is not 

affected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

design or configuration of the plant. The 

proposed change does not involve a physical 

alteration of the plant; no new or different 

kind of equipment will be installed. The 

proposed change does not alter the types of 

inservice testing performed. In most cases, 

the frequency of inservice testing is 

unchanged. However, the frequency of 

testing would not result in a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated since the testing methods are not 

altered. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change eliminates some 

requirements from the TS in lieu of 

requirements in the ASME Code, as modified 

by use of Code Case OMN–20. Compliance 

with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 

50.55a. The proposed change also allows 

inservice tests with periods greater than two 

years to be extended by six months to 

facilitate test scheduling and consideration of 

plant operating conditions that may not be 

suitable for performance of the required 

testing. The testing period extension will not 

affect the ability of the components to 

respond to an accident as the components are 

required to be operable during the testing 

period extension. The proposed change will 

eliminate the existing TS SR 3.0.3 allowance 

to defer performance of missed inservice tests 

up to the duration of the specified testing 

period, and instead will require an 

assessment of the missed test on equipment 

operability. This assessment will consider 

the effect on a margin of safety (equipment 

operability). Should the component be 

inoperable, the Technical Specifications 

provide actions to ensure that the margin of 

safety is protected. The proposed change also 

eliminates a statement that nothing in the 

ASME Code should be construed to 

supersede the requirements of any TS. The 

NRC has determined that statement to be 

incorrect. However, elimination of the 

statement will have no effect on plant 

operation or safety. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on that 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the request 

for amendments involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Michael G. 

Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. 

Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, 

AZ 85072–2034. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station (VY), Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: May 1, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17124A429. This request was 

supplemented by information submitted 

by the licensee by letter dated June 13, 

2017 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML17166A234). 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would extend 

the scheduled implementation date for 

Milestone 8 of the VY Cyber Security 

Plan (CSP) to July 31, 2019, to support 

the decommissioning status of VY. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the CSP 

implementation schedule is administrative in 

nature. 

This proposed change does not alter 

accident analysis assumptions, add any 

initiators, or affect the function of facility 

systems or the manner in which systems are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

Inspected. The proposed change does not 

require any facility modifications which 

affect the performance capability of the 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

relied upon to mitigate the consequences of 

postulated accidents and has no impact on 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the CSP 

implementation schedule is administrative in 

nature. 

This proposed change does not alter 

accident analysis assumptions, add any 

initiators, or affect the function of facility 

systems or the manner in which systems are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

inspected. The proposed change does not 

require any facility modifications which 

affect the performance capability of the SSCs 

relied upon to mitigate the consequences of 

postulated accidents and does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Plant safety margins are established 

through limiting conditions for operation, 

limiting safety system settings, and safety 

limits specified In the Technical 

Specifications. The proposed change to the 

CSP implementation schedule is 

administrative in nature. In addition, the 

milestone date delay for full implementation 

of the CSP has no substantive impact because 

other measures, including completing and 

maintaining interim Milestones 1 through 7, 

have been taken which provide adequate 

protection during this period of time. 

Because there is no change to established 

safety margins as a result of this proposed 

change, no significant reduction in a margin 

of safety is involved. 

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: Ms. Susan 

Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy 

Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

38718 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 

NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 

20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake 

County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: June 20, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17171A301. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

a surveillance requirement (SR) in 

Technical Specification 3.8.1, ‘‘AC 

Sources—Operating,’’ to clarify that the 

intent of the surveillance is to verify 

that only the non-critical diesel 

generator (DG) trips are bypassed on an 

emergency core cooling system 

initiation signal. The proposed changes 

are consistent with Technical 

Specification Task Force Improved 

Standard Technical Specifications 

Change Traveler 400–A, Revision 1, 

‘‘Clarify SR on Bypass of DG Automatic 

Trips.’’ 

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 clarifies the purpose 

of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to verify that noncritical automatic diesel generator (DG) trips 

are bypassed in an accident. The DG 

automatic trips and their bypasses are not 

initiators of any accident previously 

evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any 

accident is not significantly increased. The 

function of the DGs in mitigating accidents 

is not changed. The revised SR continues to 

ensure the DGs will operate as assumed in 

the accident analyses. Therefore, the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not affected. 

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 clarifies the purpose 

of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to verify that noncritical automatic DG trips are bypassed in an 

accident. The proposed change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no 

new or different type of equipment will be 

installed) or a change in the methods 

governing normal plant operation. 

Thus, this change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change clarifies the purpose 

of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to verify that noncritical automatic DG trips are bypassed in an 

accident. Performance of the clarified SR will 

verify that the non-critical trips are bypassed 

on simulated ECCS [emergency core cooling 

system] actuation signals to ensure that 

actuation of a non-critical trip does not take 

a DG out of service during an emergency. The 

bypassing of the non-critical automatic DG 

trips will maintain DG availability during an 

emergency so that it will be able to perform 

its assumed safety function. As such, the 

safety function of the DGs remains 

unaffected, so the change does not affect the 

margin of safety. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David W. 

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76 

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), 

Unit No. 1, Washington County, 

Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: June 9, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17160A405. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would delete 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 2.8.3(6), 

‘‘Spent Fuel Cask Loading,’’ and 

associated Figure 2–11, ‘‘Limiting 

Burnup Criteria for Acceptable Storage 

in Spent Fuel Cask’’; TS 3.2 Table 3– 

5(24), ‘‘Spent Fuel Cask Loading’’; TS 

4.3.1.3, Design Features associated with 

spent fuel casks; and portions of TS 3.2, 

Table 3–4(5), Footnote (4) on boron 

concentration associated with cask 

loading. The deletion of the TS sections 

will bring the FCS TSs into 

conformance with 10 CFR 50.68(c) 

‘‘Criticality accident requirements.’’ 

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 simply bring[s] the 

[station’s] technical specifications into 

compliance with the current version of 10 

CFR 50.68. There is no change to probability 

or consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter [any] 

safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions 

associated with the operation of the plant. 

The proposed change does not introduce any 

new accident initiators, nor does the change 

reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of 

any plant structure or system in the 

performance of its safety function. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits or limiting 

safety system settings are determined. The 

safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 

affected by the proposed change. The 

proposed change does not change the design 

function of any equipment assumed to 

operate in the event of an accident. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, 

Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), 

Unit No. 1, Washington County, 

Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: June 16, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17167A057. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

remove the FCS Cyber Security Plan 

(CSP) from the FCS Operating License 

Condition. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 38719 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to remove the [FCS 

CSP] requirement does not alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not require any 

plant modifications which affect the 

performance capability of the structures, 

systems, and components [SSCs] relied upon 

to mitigate the consequences of postulated 

accidents, and has no impact on the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to remove the [FCS 

CSP] requirement does not alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not require any 

plant modifications which affect the 

performance capability of the [SSCs] relied 

upon to mitigate the consequences of 

postulated accidents, and has no impact on 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

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 amendment proposes the elimination 

of the CSP as set forth in the CSP 

Implementation Schedule and associated 

regulatory commitments. The elimination of 

the CSP does not involve modifications to 

any safety-related SSCs. The proposed 

amendment is based on the comparison of 

the risks at an operating nuclear power 

reactor as opposed to a nuclear power reactor 

that has permanently ceased operations and 

has removed all fuel from the reactor vessel. 

The spectrum of possible accidents are 

significantly fewer and the risk of an offsite 

radiological release is significantly lower for 

a permanently defueled reactor. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, 

Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

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: June 23, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17179A171. 

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 COL Appendix A, 

Technical Specifications (TS). 

Specifically, the proposed changes 

revise plant-specific Tier 2 information 

to add the time delay assumed in the 

safety analysis for the reactor trip on a 

safeguards actuation (‘‘S’’) signal to 

UFSAR Table 15.0–4a. This is also 

reflected in the proposed revision to TS 

3.3.4, Reactor Trip System (RTS) 

Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 

System (ESFAS) Instrumentation, to add 

a surveillance requirement to verify the 

RTS response time for this ‘‘S’’ signal. 

The request also includes proposed 

changes to TS 3.3.7, RTS Trip Actuation 

Devices, to clarify that the requirements 

for reactor trip breaker (RTB) 

undervoltage and shunt trip 

mechanisms apply only to in-service 

RTBs. In addition, the request includes 

proposed changes to TS 3.3.9, ESFAS 

Manual Initiation, to correct the 

nomenclature for the Chemical and 

Volume Control System, which is 

advertently stated as the Chemical 

Volume and Control System. 

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 

NRC staff edits in square brackets: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The changes do not involve an interface 

with any [structure, system, and component 

(SSC)] accident initiator or initiating 

sequence of events, and thus, the 

probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the 

plant-specific UFSAR are not affected. The 

proposed changes do not involve a change to 

any mitigation sequence or the predicted 

radiological releases due to postulated 

accident conditions, thus, 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 adversely 

affect any system or design function or 

equipment qualification as the change does 

not modify any SSCs that prevent safety 

functions from being performed. The changes 

do not introduce a new failure mode, 

malfunction or sequence of events that could 

adversely affect safety or safety-related 

equipment. 

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 would not affect any 

safety-related design code, function, design 

analysis, safety analysis input or result, or 

existing design/safety margin. No safety 

analysis or design basis acceptance limit/ 

criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 

requested changes. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

38720 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 

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 (PVNGS), Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of application for amendment: 

November 25, 2015, as supplemented by 

letters dated January 29, June 30, 

October 6, November 9, and November 

23, 2016; and March 3 and May 24, 

2017. 

Brief Description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, by 

modifying the requirements to 

incorporate the results of an updated 

criticality safety analysis for both new 

and spent fuel storage. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—203, Unit 

2—203, and Unit 3—203. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17188A412; 

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 and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19644). 

The supplements dated June 30, October 

6, November 9, and November 23, 2016; 

and March 3 and May 24, 2017, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 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 application for amendments: 

December 15, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ‘‘Containment 

Isolation Valves,’’ to add a Note to TS 

Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 

3.6.3 Required Actions A.2, C.2, and E.2 

to allow isolation devices that are 

locked, sealed, or otherwise secured to 

be verified by use of administrative 

means. The changes are consistent with 

NRC-approved Technical Specifications 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–269– 

A, Revision 2, ‘‘Allow administrative 

means of position verification for locked 

or sealed valves.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 21, 2017. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of their 

date of issuance and shall be 

implemented within 120 days of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 290 and 286. A 

publicly available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17165A441; 

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 licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR 19098). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 21, 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 application for amendments: 

December 15, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.1.8, ‘‘PHYSICS 

TESTS Exceptions,’’ to allow the 

numbers of channels required by the 

Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) 

section of TS 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip 

System (RTS) Instrumentation,’’ to be 

reduced from ‘‘4’’ to ‘‘3’’ to allow one 

nuclear instrumentation channel to be 

used as an input to the reactivity 

computer for physics testing without 

placing the nuclear instrumentation 

channel in a tripped condition. The 

changes are consistent with Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–315–A, Revision 0, 

‘‘Reduce plant trips due to spurious 

signals to the NIS [Nuclear 

Instrumentation System] during physics 

testing.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 26, 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.: 291 (Unit 1) and 

287 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17172A428; 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 licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR 19098). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station 

(Columbia), Benton County, Washington 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 14, 2016, as supplemented by letter 

dated July 5, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changed the Columbia 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 

consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specifications 

Change Traveler TSTF–545, Revision 3, 

‘‘TS Inservice Testing Program Removal 

& Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] 

Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 

Testing,’’ dated October 21, 2015. 

Date of issuance: July 24, 2017. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 243. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17187A257; 

documents related to this amendment 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 38721 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–21: The amendment revised 

the Facility Operating License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 27, 2016 (81 FR 

66304). The supplemental letter dated 

July 5, 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 July 24, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, 

Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: July 25, 

2016. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changed the Waterford 3 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 

consistent with Technical Specifications 

Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specifications Change Traveler TSTF– 

545, Revision 3, ‘‘TS Inservice Testing 

Program Removal & Clarify SR 

[Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule 

Application to Section 5.5 Testing,’’ 

dated October 21, 2015. 

Date of issuance: July 27, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 90 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 250. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17192A007; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

38: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 

78647). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–266, Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant (PBNP), Unit 1, Town of Two 

Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin 

Date amendment request: July 29, 

2016, as supplemented by letter dated 

April 20, 2017. Publicly-available 

versions of these documents are in 

ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML16237A066 and ML17110A068, 

respectively. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment consists of changes to the 

technical specifications (TSs) for PBNP, 

Unit 1. The amendment makes changes 

to TS 3.4.13, ‘‘RCS Operational 

LEAKAGE,’’ TS 5.5.8, ‘‘Steam Generator 

(SG) Program,’’ and TS 5.6.8, ‘‘Steam 

Generator Tube Inspection Report,’’ in 

order to implement the H* (pronounced 

H-star) alternate repair criteria on a 

permanent basis. 

Date of issuance: July 27, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 260. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17159A778; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–24: Amendment revised the 

Facility Operating License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 

87961). The supplemental letter dated 

April 20, 2017, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the 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 July 27, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), 

Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: 

September 2, 2016, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 3 and April 5, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Nuclear 

Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

for FCS for the plant condition 

following permanent cessation of power 

operations and defueling to reflect 

changes in the shift staffing and 

Emergency Response Organization 

staffing. 

Date of issuance: July 27, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 291. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17123A348; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 

78650). The supplemental letters dated 

March 3 and April 5, 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 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 July 27, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), 

Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: 

September 28, 2016, as supplemented 

by letter dated April 27, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to make 

administrative changes to align staffing 

for permanently defueled condition at 

FCS. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 292. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17165A465; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 

78650). 

The supplemental letter dated April 

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 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 July 28, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

38722 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 

3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: January 

20, 2017, and supplemented by letter 

dated June 6, 2017. 

Description of amendment: The 

amendments consist of changes to the 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the 

form of departures from plant-specific 

Design Control Document Tier 2 

information, Combined License (COL) 

Appendix A Technical Specifications, 

and COL Appendix C information. The 

departures consist of in-containment 

refueling water storage tank (IRWST) 

minimum volume changes in plantspecific UFSAR Table 14.3–2, COL 

Appendix A Technical Specifications 

3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8 and Surveillance 

Requirements 3.5.6.2 and 3.5.8.2 and 

COL Appendix C (and associated plantspecific Tier 1) Table 2.2.3–4. The 

changes restore the desired consistency 

of these sections with the UFSAR 

IRWST minimum volume value in other 

locations. 

Date of issuance: July 6, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 81 and 80. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17171A137; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 

13662). The supplemental letter dated 

June 6, 2017, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application request as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated July 6, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–387 and 50–388, Susquehanna 

Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: February 

1, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

May 17, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.6.4.3, ‘‘Standby Gas 

Treatment (SGT) System,’’ and TS 3.7.3, 

‘‘Control Room Emergency Outside Air 

Supply (CREOAS) System,’’ by changing 

the run time of monthly surveillance 

requirements for the standby gas 

treatment and control room emergency 

outside air supply systems from 10 

hours to 15 minutes. This change is 

consistent with Technical Specifications 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–522, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Ventilation System 

Surveillance Requirements to Operate 

for 10 hours per Month,’’ with minor 

variations. The notice of availability and 

model safety evaluation of TSTF–522, 

Revision 0, were published in the 

Federal Register on September 20, 2012 

(77 FR 58421). 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 268 (Unit 1) and 

250 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17187A297; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–14 and NPF–22: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR 17461). 

The supplemental letter dated May 17, 

2017, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the NRC staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry 

Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, 

Surry County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: July 14, 

2016, as supplemented by letters dated 

January 31, 2017, March 1, 2017 and 

March 10, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments would extend the 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.14.B 

allowed outage time for one inoperable 

emergency service water (ESW) pump 

from 7 to 14 days to provide operational 

flexibility for ESW pump maintenance 

and repairs. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 290 and 290. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17170A183; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–4 

and NPF–7: Amendments revised the 

Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR 

73443). The letters dated January 31, 

2017, March 1, 2017 and March 10, 

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 July 28, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of August 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Anne T. Boland, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16998 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Notice—September 6, 2017 

Public Hearing 

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, 

September 6, 2017. 

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, 

Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 

York Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 

STATUS: Hearing OPEN to the Public at 

2:00 p.m. 

PURPOSE: Public Hearing in conjunction 

with each meeting of OPIC’s Board of 

Directors, to afford an opportunity for 

any person to present views regarding 

the activities of the Corporation. 

PROCEDURES: Individuals wishing to 

address the hearing orally must provide 

advance notice to OPIC’s Corporate 

Secretary no later than 5 p.m. 

Wednesday, August 30, 2017. The 

notice must include the individual’s 

name, title, organization, address, and 

telephone number, and a concise 

summary of the subject matter to be 

presented. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES