41064 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 

It is so ordered. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of August 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING

Day Event/activity 

0 ........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests. 

10 ...................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: 

Supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order 

for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 

60 ...................... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 

20 ...................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for 

access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 

25 ...................... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling 

to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief 

Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any 

party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to 

file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 

30 ...................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 

40 ...................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and 

file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure 

Agreement for SUNSI. 

A ....................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access 

to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a 

final adverse determination by the NRC staff. 

A + 3 ................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. 

A + 28 ............... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days 

remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as

established in the notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene), the petitioner may file its

SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. 

A + 53 ............... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. 

A + 60 ............... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

>A + 60 ............. Decision on contention admission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18224 Filed 8–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0182] 

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 August 1 to 

August 14, 2017. The last biweekly 

notice was published on August 15, 

2017. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

September 28, 2017. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by October 30, 

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–2017–0182. 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: 

Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1384, 

email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0182, facility name, unit numbers, plant 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 41065 

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–2017–0182. 

• 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 the 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– 

0182, facility name, unit numbers, 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. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
41066 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 

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 Federallyrecognized 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 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 41067 

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. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS), 

York County, South Carolina 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (MNS), 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3 (ONS), Oconee County, South 

Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, 

North Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric 

Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: July 18, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17199F771. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

technical specifications (TSs) based on 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–529, Revision 4, 

‘‘Clarify Use and Application Rules’’ 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML16062A271). 

The changes would revise and clarify 

the TS usage rules for completion times, 

limiting conditions for operation 

(LCOs), and surveillance requirements 

(SRs). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to CNS, MNS, ONS, 

and RNP [TS] Section 1.3, and CNS, MNS, 

and RNP LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the 

requirement for systems to be Operable and 

have no effect on the application of TS 

actions. The proposed change to CNS, MNS, 

ONS, and RNP SR 3.0.3 (TS 4.0.3 for HNP) 

states that the allowance may only be used 

when there is a reasonable expectation the 

surveillance will be met when performed. 

Since the proposed changes do not 

significantly affect system Operability, the 

proposed change will have no significant 

effect on the initiating events for accidents 

previously evaluated and will have no 

significant effect on the ability of the systems 

to mitigate accidents previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the TS usage rules 

does not affect the design or function of any 

plant systems. The proposed change does not 

change the Operability requirements for plant 

systems or the actions taken when plant 

systems are not operable. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change clarifies the 

application of TS 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 and does 

not result in changes in plant operation. SR 

3.0.3 (TS 4.0.3 for HNP) is revised to allow 

application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not 

been previously performed, if there is 

reasonable expectation that the SR will be 

met when performed. This expands the use 

of SR 3.0.3 (TS 4.0.3 for HNP) while ensuring 

the affected system is capable of performing 

its safety function. As a result, plant safety 

is either improved or unaffected. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. 

Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 

Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon 

Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, 

NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham 

Counties, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: May 22, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17142A411. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise HNP dose 

consequences for the facility, as 

described in the HNP Final Safety 

Analysis Report, to provide gap release 

fractions for high-burnup fuel rods that 

exceed the 6.3 kilowatt per foot (kW/ft) 

linear heat generation rate limit detailed 

in Table 3 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
41068 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 

1.183, Alternative Radiological Source 

Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 

Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors. 

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? 

The proposed change involves using gap 

release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods 

(i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU [gigawatt 

days per metric ton unit]) that exceed the 6.3 

kW/ft linear heat generation rate (LHGR) 

limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG 

1.183. Increased gap release fractions were 

determined and accounted for in the dose 

analysis for HNP. The dose consequences 

reported in the Final Safety Analysis Report 

(FSAR) were reanalyzed for fuel handling 

accidents only. Dose consequences were not 

reanalyzed for other non-fuel-handling 

accidents since no fuel rod that is predicted 

to enter departure from nucleate boiling 

(DNB) will be permitted to operate beyond 

the limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11. 

The current NRC requirements, as described 

in 10 CFR 50.67, specifies dose acceptance 

criteria in terms of Total Effective Dose 

Equivalent (TEDE). The revised dose 

consequence analyses for the fuel handling 

events at HNP meet the applicable TEDE 

dose acceptance criteria (specified also in RG 

1.183). A slight increase in dose 

consequences is exhibited. However, the 

increase is not significant and the new TEDE 

results are below regulatory acceptance 

criteria. 

The changes proposed do not affect the 

precursors for fuel handling accidents 

analyzed in Chapter 15 of the HNP FSAR. 

The probability remains unchanged since the 

accident analyses performed and discussed 

in the basis for the FSAR changes involve no 

change to a system, structure or component 

that affects initiating events for any FSAR 

Chapter 15 accident evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

The proposed change involves using gap 

release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods 

(i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed 

the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 

3, Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Increased gap 

release fractions were determined and 

accounted for in the dose analysis for HNP. 

The dose consequences reported in HNP’s 

FSAR were reanalyzed for fuel handling 

accidents only. Dose consequences were not 

reanalyzed for other non-fuel-handling 

accidents since no fuel rod that is predicted 

to enter departure from nucleate boiling 

(DNB), will be permitted to operate beyond 

the limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11. 

The proposed change does not involve the 

addition or modification of any plant 

equipment. The proposed change has the 

potential to affect future core designs for 

HNP. However, the impact will not be 

beyond the standard function capabilities of 

the equipment. The proposed change 

involves using gap release fractions that 

would allow high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., 

greater than 54 GWD/MTU) to exceed the 6.3 

kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, 

Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Accounting for 

these new gap release fractions in the dose 

analysis for HNP does not create the 

possibility of a new accident. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

The proposed change involves using gap 

release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods 

(i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed 

the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 

3, Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Increased gap 

release fractions were determined and 

accounted for in the dose analysis for HNP. 

The dose consequences reported in HNP’s 

FSAR were reanalyzed for fuel handling 

accidents only. Dose consequences were not 

reanalyzed for other non-fuel-handling 

accidents since no fuel rod that is predicted 

to enter departure from nucleate boiling 

(DNB) will be permitted to operate beyond 

the limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11. 

The proposed change has the potential for 

an increased postulated accident dose at 

HNP. However, the analysis demonstrates 

that the resultant doses are within the 

appropriate acceptance criteria. The margin 

of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and 

Regulatory Guide 1.183, has been 

maintained. Furthermore, the assumptions 

and input used in the gap release and dose 

consequences calculations are conservative. 

These conservative assumptions ensure that 

the radiation doses calculated pursuant to 

Regulatory Guide 1.183 and cited in this LAR 

[license amendment request] are the upper 

bounds to radiological consequences of the 

fuel handling accidents analyzed. The 

analysis shows that with increased gap 

release fractions accounted for in the dose 

consequences calculations there is margin 

between the offsite radiation doses calculated 

and the dose limits of 10 CFR 50.67 and 

acceptance criteria of Regulatory Guide 

1.183. The proposed change will not degrade 

the plant protective boundaries, will not 

cause a release of fission products to the 

public, and will not degrade the performance 

of any structures, systems or components 

important to 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: Lara Nichols, 

Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C 

DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Undine S. Shoop. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. 

STN 50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: June 30, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17181A276. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.11, 

‘‘Control Room Ventilation (VC) 

Temperature Control System,’’ to 

modify the TS Actions for two 

inoperable VC temperature control 

system trains. 

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 VC Temperature Control System is not 

an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not 

increased. The consequences of an accident 

during the proposed 24 hour Completion 

Time are no different than the consequences 

of an accident in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4 during 

the existing 1 hour Completion Time 

provided in LCO [limiting condition for 

operation] 3.0.3 to prepare for a shutdown. 

The only accident previously evaluated in 

Modes 5 or 6 is a fuel handling accident. The 

accident evaluation does not assume a loss of 

offsite electrical power or additional failures, 

and the mitigating actions to maintain 

control room temperature less than or equal 

to 80 °F [degree Fahrenheit] will still be 

available should a fuel handling accident 

occur. As a result, providing 24 hours to 

restore one train of control room cooling does 

not significantly increase the consequences 

of a fuel handling accident over the current 

requirement. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

All plant equipment controlled from the 

control room and operator response actions 

in response to a design basis accident will be 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 41069 

maintained as currently designed and 

applied. No new equipment or operator 

responses are required in response to a 

design basis accident as part of this proposed 

change. The proposed change will not alter 

the design or function of the control room or 

the VC Temperature Control System. Should 

the new Required Actions not be met, the 

existing and proposed Required Actions 

require preparation for an orderly plant 

shutdown, or suspension of positive 

reactivity additions and suspension of 

movement of irradiated fuel assemblies, as 

applicable based on the mode of 

applicability. 

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 provides a limited 

period of time to restore an inoperable VC 

Temperature Control System train instead of 

interrupting plant operations, possibly 

requiring an orderly plant shutdown of both 

units, or suspension of movement of 

irradiated fuel assemblies and suspension of 

positive reactivity additions. A plant 

disruption or transient may be avoided with 

mitigating actions taken and the control room 

area temperature maintained. The potential 

to avoid a plant transient in conjunction with 

maintaining the control room temperature 

offsets any risk associated with the limited 

Completion Time. The proposed change does 

not impact a design basis, TS Limiting 

Condition for Operation, limiting safety 

system setting, or safety limit specified in 

TSs. 

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: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. 

STN 50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: June 30, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17187A191. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise 

Technical Specification (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.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Control and shutdown rods are assumed to 

insert into the core to shut down the reactor 

in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits 

ensure that adequate negative reactivity is 

available to provide the assumed shutdown 

margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap 

limits maintain an appropriate power 

distribution and reactivity insertion profile. 

Control and shutdown rods are initiators to 

several accidents previously evaluated, such 

as rod ejection. The proposed changes do not 

change the limiting conditions for operation 

pertaining to the rods or make any technical 

changes to the Surveillance Requirements 

(SRs) governing the rods. 

Therefore, the proposed change has no 

significant effect on the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated. 

Revising the TS Actions to provide a 

limited time to repair rod movement control 

has no effect on the SDM assumed in the 

accident analysis as the proposed Actions 

require verification that SDM is maintained. 

The effects on power distribution will not 

cause a significant increase in the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated as all TS requirements on power 

distribution continue to be applicable. 

Revising the TS Actions to provide an 

alternative to frequent use of the moveable 

incore detector system or the Power 

Distribution Monitoring System to verify the 

position of rods with inoperable rod position 

indicator does not change the requirement for 

the rods to be aligned and within the 

insertion limits. 

Therefore, the assumptions used in any 

accidents previously evaluated are 

unchanged and there is no significant 

increase in the consequences. 

The proposed change resolves conflicts 

within the TS to ensure that the intended 

Actions are followed when equipment is 

inoperable. Actions taken for inoperable 

equipment are not assumptions in the 

accidents previously evaluated and have no 

significant effect on the accident 

consequences. 

The proposed change to increase 

consistency within the TS has no effect on 

the consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated as the proposed change clarifies 

the application of the existing requirements 

and does not change the intent. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new 

or different type of equipment will be 

installed). The change does not alter the 

assumptions made in the safety analyses. The 

proposed change does not alter the limiting 

conditions for operation pertaining to the 

rods or make any technical changes to the 

SRs governing the rods. The proposed change 

to the TS Required Actions maintains safety 

when equipment is inoperable and does not 

introduce any new failure modes. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to provide sufficient 

time to repair rods that are Operable but 

immovable does not result in a significant 

reduction in the margin of safety because all 

rods must be verified to be Operable, and all 

other rod banks must be within the insertion 

limits. The remaining proposed changes to 

make the requirements internally consistent 

do not affect the margin of safety as the 

changes do not affect the ability of the rods 

to perform their specified safety function. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment 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: David J. Wrona. 

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket 

Nos. 50–250 and 251, Turkey Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 28, 2017. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17180A447. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) by 

relocating to licensee-controlled 

documents, select acceptance criteria 

specified in TS surveillance 

requirements (SRs) credited for 

satisfying Inservice Testing (IST) 

Program and Inservice Inspection 

Program requirements, deleting the SRs 

for the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, 2, and 

3 components, replacing references to 

the Surveillance Frequency Control 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
41070 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 

Program (SFCP) with references to the 

Turkey Point IST Program where 

appropriate, establishing a Reactor 

Coolant Pump (RCP) Flywheel 

Inspection Program, and related 

editorial changes. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes provide added 

assurance that inservice testing will be 

performed in the manner and within the 

timeframes established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). 

The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the deletion of 

IST acceptance criteria from SR 4.5.2.c and 

SR 4.6.2.1.b neither affects the conduct nor 

the periodicity of testing which demonstrates 

the operational readiness of safety-related 

pumps and valves. The addition of references 

to the IST Program in SR(s) where applicable 

and the deletion of references to the SFCP in 

SR testing credited by the IST Program are 

administrative in nature and can neither 

initiate nor exacerbate any accident 

previously evaluated. Similarly, the deletion 

of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP 

flywheel inspection requirements within the 

TS are administrative changes and cannot 

affect the likelihood or outcome of any 

accident previously evaluated. Deletion of 

the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding 

returning Pressure Isolation Valves (PIVs) to 

service following maintenance, repair or 

replacement, deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d 

footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 

Cycle 26, and related editorial changes are 

administrative changes in nature and do not 

alter any plant equipment or the results of 

any accident analyses. 

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 deletion of IST acceptance criteria 

from the TS does not affect the manner in 

which any SSC [system, structure, or 

component] is maintained or operated and 

does not introduce new SSCs or new 

methods for maintaining existing plant SSCs. 

Inservice testing will continue in the manner 

and periodicity specified in the IST program 

and hence no new or different kind of 

accident can result. The addition of 

references to the IST Program in SR(s) where 

applicable and the deletion of references to 

the SFCP in SR testing credited by the IST 

Program are administrative changes and 

cannot affect the manner in which any SSC 

is maintained or operated. The deletion of SR 

4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP flywheel 

inspection requirements within the TS are 

administrative changes and cannot be an 

initiator of a new or different kind of 

accident. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c 

requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to 

service following maintenance, repair or 

replacement, deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d 

footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 

Cycle 26, and other editorial changes are 

administrative changes in nature and do not 

introduce any new plant equipment, failure 

modes or accident analyses postulated 

outcomes. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve 

changes to any safety analyses assumptions, 

safety limits, or limiting safety system 

settings nor do they adversely impact plant 

operating margins or the reliability of 

equipment credited in the safety analyses. 

The reliability of credited equipment is 

enhanced through added assurance that 

inservice inspection and inservice testing 

will be performed in the manner and within 

the timeframes established by the ASME 

Code requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(a)(g) and 

10 CFR 50.55(a)(f), respectively. The deletion 

of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP 

flywheel inspection requirements within the 

TS are administrative changes with no 

impact on the margin of safety currently 

described the Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c 

requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to 

service following maintenance, repair or 

replacement, deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d 

footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 

Cycle 26, and other editorial changes are 

administrative changes in nature with no 

impact on nuclear safety. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light Company, 700 

Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (HNP), Appling 

County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: April 7, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17097A322. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, 

‘‘Secondary Containment,’’ Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.2 to provide an 

allowance for brief, inadvertent, 

simultaneous opening of redundant 

secondary containment access doors 

during normal entry and exit 

conditions. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change allows temporary 

conditions during which secondary 

containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The 

secondary containment is not an initiator of 

any accident previously evaluated. As a 

result, the probability of any accident 

previously evaluated is not increased. 

Since the access doors are only opened 

briefly, were an accident to occur with both 

doors simultaneously open, the doors would 

close quickly enough such that the SGTS 

[Standby Gas Treatment System] would not 

be hindered in its ability to adequately draw 

down the secondary containment within the 

time assumed in the accident analysis. The 

dose consequences would therefore be no 

worse than assumed in the current HNP 

accident analysis and within the federal 

guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67. As a result, the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

protection system design, create new failure 

modes, or change any modes of operation. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant, and no new 

or different kind of equipment will be 

installed. Consequently, there are no new 

initiators that could result in a new or 

different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change allows temporary 

conditions during which secondary 

containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The 

allowance for both an inner and outer 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 41071 

secondary containment access door to be 

open simultaneously for entry and exit does 

not affect the safety function of the secondary 

containment as the doors are promptly closed 

after entry or exit, thereby restoring the 

secondary containment boundary. In 

addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous 

opening and closing of redundant secondary 

containment access doors during normal 

entry and exit conditions does not affect the 

ability of the Standby Gas Treatment 

[S]ystem to establish the required secondary 

containment vacuum. Therefore, the safety 

function of the secondary containment is not 

affected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35242. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: April 20, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17114A377. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) by 

replacing the existing requirements 

related to ‘‘operations with a potential 

for draining the reactor vessel’’ 

(OPDRVs) with new requirements on 

Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory 

Control (RPV WIC) to protect Safety 

Limit 2.1.1.3, which requires the reactor 

vessel water level to be greater than the 

top of active irradiated fuel. The 

proposed amendments would adopt 

changes, with variations, based on the 

NRC-approved safety evaluation for 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–542, Revision 2, 

‘‘Reactor Pressure Vessel Water 

Inventory Control,’’ dated December 20, 

2016 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML16343B066). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water 

inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold shutdown) 

and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident 

previously evaluated and, therefore, 

replacing the existing TS controls to prevent 

or mitigate such an event with a new set of 

controls has no effect on any accident 

previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 

control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or 

the proposed RPV WIC controls are not 

mitigating actions assumed in any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change reduces the 

probability of an unexpected draining event 

(which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by imposing new requirements on 

the limiting time in which an unexpected 

draining event could result in the reactor 

vessel water level dropping to the top of the 

active fuel (TAF). These controls require 

cognizance of the plant configuration and 

control of configurations with unacceptably 

short drain times. These requirements reduce 

the probability of an unexpected draining 

event. The current TS requirements are only 

mitigating actions and impose no 

requirements that reduce the probability of 

an unexpected draining event. 

The proposed change reduces the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event (which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by requiring an Emergency Core 

Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 

Operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The 

current TS requirements do not require any 

water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, 

to be Operable in certain conditions in Mode 

5. The change in requirement from two ECCS 

subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 

4 and 5 does not significantly affect the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event because the proposed Actions ensure 

equipment is available within the limiting 

drain time that is as capable of mitigating the 

event as the current requirements. The 

proposed controls provide escalating 

compensatory measures to be established as 

calculated drain times decrease, such as 

verification of a second method of water 

injection and additional confirmations that 

containment and/or filtration would be 

available if needed. 

The proposed change reduces or eliminates 

some requirements that were determined to 

be unnecessary to manage the consequences 

of an unexpected draining event, such as 

automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem 

and control room ventilation. These changes 

do not affect the consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated since a 

draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a 

previously evaluated accident and the 

requirements are not needed to adequately 

respond to a draining event. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change 

will not alter the design function of the 

equipment involved. Under the proposed 

change, some systems that are currently 

required to be Operable during OPDRVs 

would be required to be available within the 

limiting drain time or to be in service 

depending on the limiting drain time. Should 

those systems be unable to be placed into 

service, the consequences are no different 

than if those systems were unable to perform 

their function under the current TS 

requirements. 

The event of concern under the current 

requirements and the proposed change is an 

unexpected draining event. The proposed 

change does not create new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators that would cause a draining event 

or a new or different kind of accident not 

previously evaluated or included in the 

design and licensing bases. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC. The current 

requirements do not have a stated safety basis 

and no margin of safety is established in the 

licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 

requirements is to protect Safety Limit 

2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to 

determine the limiting time in which the 

RPV water inventory could drain to the top 

of the 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
41072 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35242. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2 (VEGP), Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: June 22, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17173A875. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

incorporate use of the plant-specific 

seismic probabilistic risk assessment 

(SPRA) into the previously approved 10 

CFR 50.69 risk-informed categorization 

process and treatment of structures, 

systems, and components (SSCs) for 

nuclear power reactors. Specifically, the 

amendments would change from a 

seismic margins approach (SMA) to an 

SPRA approach. 

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 replaces the use of 

the VEGP SMA with use of the peer reviewed 

VEGP SPRA within the NRC approved riskinformed categorization process to modify 

the scope of SSCs subject to NRC special 

treatment requirements and to implement 

alternative treatments per the regulations. 

The use of an SPRA in place of an SMA is 

allowed by the 50.69 process guidance 

defined in [Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 00– 

04 [‘‘10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization 

Guideline’’] as endorsed by NRC in 

[Regulatory Guide] RG 1.201 [‘‘Guidelines for 

Categorizing Structures, Systems, and 

Components in Nuclear Power Plants 

According to their Safety Significance.’’] The 

process used to evaluate SSCs for changes to 

NRC special treatment requirements and the 

use of alternative requirements ensures the 

ability of the SSCs to perform their design 

function. The potential change to special 

treatment requirements does not change the 

design and operation of the SSCs. As a result, 

the proposed change does not significantly 

affect any initiators to accidents previously 

evaluated or the ability to mitigate any 

accidents previously evaluated. The 

consequences of the accidents previously 

evaluated are not affected because the 

mitigation functions performed by the SSCs 

assumed in the safety analysis are not being 

modified. The SSCs required to safely shut 

down the reactor and maintain it in a safe 

shutdown condition following an accident 

will continue to perform their design 

functions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change continues to permit 

the use of a risk-informed categorization 

process to modify the scope of SSCs subject 

to NRC special treatment requirements and to 

implement alternative treatments per the 

regulations. The proposed change does not 

change the functional requirements, 

configuration, or method of operation of any 

SSC. Under the proposed change, no 

additional plant equipment will be installed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will continue to 

permit the use of a risk-informed 

categorization process to modify the scope of 

SSCs subject to NRC special treatment 

requirements and to implement alternative 

treatments per the regulations. The proposed 

change does not affect any Safety Limits or 

operating parameters used to establish the 

safety margin. The safety margins included in 

analyses of accidents are not affected by the 

proposed change. The regulation requires 

that there be no significant effect on plant 

risk due to any change to the special 

treatment requirements for SSCs and that the 

SSCs continue to be capable of performing 

their design basis functions, as well as to 

perform any beyond design basis functions 

consistent with the categorization process 

and results. 

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: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

40 Iverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35242. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

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. 

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

September 16, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the St. Lucie Plant, 

Unit Nos. 1 and Unit 2, Technical 

Specifications by removing certain 

process radiation monitors and placing 

their requirements in a licenseecontrolled manual. The amendments 

also changed the Unit 2 containment 

particulate radiation monitor range. 

Date of issuance: August 14, 2017. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 41073 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 239 (Unit No. 1) 

and 190 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17195A291; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 

87972). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 

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: August 3, 

2016, as supplemented by letters dated 

October 4, 2016; January 27, 2017; 

March 31, 2017; and May 24, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements for the 

Control Room Emergency Ventilation 

System (CREVS). The licensee proposed 

the changes to align the CREVS TSs 

more closely with the applicable 

Standard Technical Specifications. 

Consequently, the requirements to 

immediately suspend irradiated fuel 

movement were relocated, in most 

cases, to coincide with the 

commencement of unit shutdown(s) in 

the event that the allowable outage time 

cannot be met for an inoperable CREVS 

component or control room envelope 

boundary. The amendments also 

eliminated the TS limiting conditions 

for operation, actions, and surveillance 

requirements associated with the 

CREVS kitchen and lavatory ventilation 

exhaust duct isolation dampers. 

Date of issuance: August 3, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos: 275 (Unit No. 3) 

and 270 (Unit No. 4). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17172A115. 

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: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 

78653). The supplements dated January 

27, 2017; March 31, 2017; 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 August 3, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 

County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: 

September 28, 2012, as supplemented 

by letters dated November 8, 2012, 

December 18, 2012, May 3, 2013, 

October 17, 2013, April 30, 2014, May 

28, 2015, June 19, 2015, October 6, 

2015, October 22, 2015, January 20, 

2016, May 24, 2016, August 17, 2016, 

December 14, 2016, and March 6, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the licenses, 

including the Technical Specifications 

(TS), for PINGP, Units 1 and 2, to 

establish and maintain fire protection 

program in accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(c). 

Date of issuance: August 8, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

consistent with condition 2.C.(4) of each 

license. 

Amendment Nos.: 220-Unit 1; 207- 

Unit 2. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17163A027; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–42 and DPR–60: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19753). 

The supplemental letters dated May 3, 

2013, October 17, 2013, April 30, 2014, 

May 28, 2015, June 19, 2015, October 6, 

2015, October 22, 2015, January 20, 

2016, May 24, 2016, August 17, 2016, 

December 14, 2016, and March 6, 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 August 8, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: 

September 21, 2015, as supplemented 

by letters dated November 19, 2015; 

June 17, 2016; September 12, 2016; and 

September 23, 2016. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approved changes to the 

Hope Creek Generating Station 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to reflect 

installation of the General ElectricHitachi Digital Nuclear Measurement 

Analysis and Control Power Range 

Neutron Monitoring system. 

Date of issuance: August 4, 2017. 

Effective date: The license 

amendment is effective as of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to entry into OPCON 4 during 

startup from refueling outage 21. 

Amendment No.: 206. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17216A022; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–57: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36607). 

The supplemental letters dated June 17, 

2016; September 12, 2016; and 

September 23, 2016, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 4, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 13, 2012, as supplemented 

by letters dated August 2, 2013; July 3, 

July 17, November 11, and December 12, 

2014; March 16 and May 5, 2015; 

February 17, April 18, and July 13, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
41074 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Notices 

1United States Postal Service Motion for 

Clarification of Order No. 3319, or, in the 

Alternative, for Extension of Market Test Time 

Period, August 22, 2017 (Motion). 

2Order Authorizing Market Test of Global 

eCommerce Marketplace (GeM) Merchant, May 25, 

2016 (Order No. 3319). 

3United States Postal Service Response to Order 

No. 3319 Concerning Effective Date of GeM 

Merchant Solution Market Test, June 8, 2016. 

2016; and March 13, April 14, May 4, 

and June 2, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised certain Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements related 

to Completion Times for Required 

Actions to provide the option to 

calculate a longer, risk-informed 

Completion Time. The allowance will 

be described in a new program, ‘‘Risk 

Informed Completion Time (RICT) 

Program,’’ that is added to TS 5.5, 

‘‘Administrative Controls.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 8, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–188; Unit 

2–171. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15127A669. Documents related to 

the amendments are listed in the Safety 

Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–68 and NPF–81: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 

13913). The supplemental letters dated 

March 16 and May 5, 2015; February 17, 

April 18, and July 13, 2016; and March 

13, April 14, May 4, and June 2, 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 August 8, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 

3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: March 

11, 2016, as revised by letters dated July 

12, 2016, and May 5, 2017, and as 

supplemented by letter dated October 

20, 2016. 

Description of amendment: The 

amendment authorizes changes to the 

VEGP, Units 3 and 4 Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report in the form of 

departures from the incorporated plant 

specific Design Control Document Tier 

2* and Tier 2 information. The changes 

are to text and figures that describe the 

connections between floor modules and 

structural wall modules in the 

containment internal structures. 

Date of issuance: July 20, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 82 (Unit 3) and 81 

(Unit 4). A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17180A040; 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: August 16, 2016 (81 FR 

54617). The October 20, 2016, 

supplement and May 5, 2017, revision 

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. 

The Commission’s related evaluation of 

the amendment is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day 

of August 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kathryn M. Brock, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17936 Filed 8–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. MT2016–1; Order No. 4062] 

Market Test of Experimental ProductCustomized Delivery 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service Motion for 

Clarification of Order No. 3319, or, in 

the Alternative, for Extension of Market 

Test Time Period. This notice informs 

the public of the filing, invites public 

comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: September 

25, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Clarification 

IV. Notice of Filing 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On August 22, 2017, the Postal 

Service filed a Motion for Clarification 

of Order No. 3319, or, in the Alternative, 

for Extension of Market Test Time 

Period.1 As discussed below, the 

Commission provides the requested 

clarification and treats the Motion as a 

request for a limited extension under 39 

U.S.C. 3641(d) to satisfy 1-year 

agreements executed in the second year 

of a 2-year market test. 

II. Background 

On May 25, 2016, the Commission 

authorized the Postal Service to proceed 

with a 2-year market test of an 

experimental product identified as 

Global eCommerce Marketplace (GeM) 

Merchant.2 GeM Merchant is an end-toend international shipping service that 

allows participating domestic online 

merchants to offer their international 

customers the ability, at the time of 

purchase, to estimate and prepay duties 

and taxes that the foreign country’s 

customs agency will assess when the 

item arrives in the foreign destination. 

Order No. 3319 at 2. The GeM Merchant 

market test began on June 27, 2016.3

III. Clarification 

The Postal Service seeks clarification 

that Order No. 3319 permits the Postal 

Service to execute GeM Merchant 

negotiated service agreements (NSAs) 

with 1-year terms during the second 

year of the test. Motion at 1. When 

authorizing the market test to proceed, 

the Commission found that ‘‘[t]he Postal 

Service’s application for a limited 

extension to satisfy 1-year GeM 

Merchant NSAs executed during the 

second year of the market test is 

premature at this time.’’ Order No. 3319 

at 21. The Commission stated that ‘‘[t]he 

Postal Service may apply for an 

extension . . . after the Postal Service 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES