Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 44847 

clearly unwarranted invasion of 

personal privacy.] 

2:30 p.m.–6:00 p.m.: Preparation of 

ACRS Reports/Retreats (Open/Closed)— 

The Committee will continue its 

discussion of proposed ACRS reports. 

[Note: A portion of this session may be 

closed in order to discuss and protect 

information designated as proprietary, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).] 

Saturday, October 7, 2017, Conference 

Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

8:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.: Preparation of 

ACRS Reports/Retreats (Open/Closed)— 

The Committee will continue its 

discussion of proposed ACRS reports. 

[Note: A portion of this session may be 

closed in order to discuss and protect 

information designated as proprietary, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)]. 

Procedures for the conduct of and 

participation in ACRS meetings were 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 17, 2016 (81 FR 71543). In 

accordance with those procedures, oral 

or written views may be presented by 

members of the public, including 

representatives of the nuclear industry. 

Persons desiring to make oral statements 

should notify Quynh Nguyen, Cognizant 

ACRS Staff (Telephone: 301–415–5844, 

Email: Quynh.Nguyen@nrc.gov), 5 days 

before the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made 

to allow necessary time during the 

meeting for such statements. In view of 

the possibility that the schedule for 

ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the 

Chairman as necessary to facilitate the 

conduct of the meeting, persons 

planning to attend should check with 

the Cognizant ACRS staff if such 

rescheduling would result in major 

inconvenience. 

Thirty-five hard copies of each 

presentation or handout should be 

provided 30 minutes before the meeting. 

In addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be emailed to the 

Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before 

meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be 

provided within this timeframe, 

presenters should provide the Cognizant 

ACRS Staff with a CD containing each 

presentation at least 30 minutes before 

the meeting. 

In accordance with Subsection 10(d) 

of Public Law 92–463 and 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c), certain portions of this meeting 

may be closed, as specifically noted 

above. Use of still, motion picture, and 

television cameras during the meeting 

may be limited to selected portions of 

the meeting as determined by the 

Chairman. Electronic recordings will be 

permitted only during the open portions 

of the meeting. 

ACRS meeting agendas, meeting 

transcripts, and letter reports are 

available through the NRC Public 

Document Room at pdr.resource@

nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1–800– 

397–4209, or from the Publicly 

Available Records System (PARS) 

component of NRC’s document system 

(ADAMS) which is accessible from the 

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

reading-rm/adams.html or http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/ACRS/. 

Video teleconferencing service is 

available for observing open sessions of 

ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use 

this service should contact Mr. Theron 

Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician 

(301–415–8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 

3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before 

the meeting to ensure the availability of 

this service. Individuals or 

organizations requesting this service 

will be responsible for telephone line 

charges and for providing the 

equipment and facilities that they use to 

establish the video teleconferencing 

link. The availability of video 

teleconferencing services is not 

guaranteed. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 

of September 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20542 Filed 9–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0194] 

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: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is publishing this 

regular biweekly notice. The Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 (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 29 

to September 11, 2017. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

September 12, 2017. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

October 26, 2017. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by November 27, 

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–2017–0194. 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: Kay 

Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–1506; email: 

Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0194, 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–2017–0194. 

• 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, 

44848 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 

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– 

0194, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 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 should 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. 

Should the Commission take 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. Should the 

Commission make 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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 44849 

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 

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

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 

44850 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 

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 publiclyavailable 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: July 19, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17200D162. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify the 

licensing basis, by the addition of a 

license condition, to allow the 

implementation of the provisions of 10 

CFR 50.69, ‘‘Risk-informed 

categorization and treatment of 

structures, systems, and components 

[SSCs] for nuclear power reactors,’’ for 

PVNGS. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.69 

allow adjustment of the scope of 

equipment subject to special treatment 

controls (e.g., quality assurance, testing, 

inspection, condition monitoring, 

assessment, and evaluation). For 

equipment determined to be of low 

safety significance, alternative treatment 

requirements can be implemented in 

accordance with this regulation. For 

equipment determined to be of high 

safety significance, requirements will 

not be changed or will be enhanced. 

This allows improved focus on 

equipment that has high safety 

significance resulting in improved plant 

safety. 

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 will 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 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(s). 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 will 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 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 the 

analyses of accidents are not affected by the 

proposed change. 10 CFR 50.69 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 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, 

Arizona 85072–2034. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– 

341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: July 17, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17198C829. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2 

Conditions and Surveillance 

Requirements to reflect a proposed 

change to the design of the two 

redundant cross-tie lines that are part of 

the ultimate heat sink. 

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. 

Operability of the Fermi 2 UHS [ultimate 

heat sink] requires that the two reservoirs 

either be cross-tied or capable of being crossVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 44851 

tied. Fermi 2 proposes a change to the design 

of the reservoirs to remove the cross-tie 

valves. With the four cross-tie valves 

removed, the reservoirs are permanently 

cross-tied and there is no credible failure 

mode to cause the reservoirs to not be crosstied during an event. A structural crack in 

one reservoir would result in both reservoirs 

being affected when they are permanently 

cross-connected. However, the consequences 

are bounded by the UFSAR [updated final 

safety analysis report] which already 

includes allowance for a structural crack in 

both reservoirs. 

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. 

Operability of the Fermi 2 UHS requires 

that the two reservoirs either be cross-tied or 

capable of being cross-tied. As these valves 

are currently maintained normally open and 

deenergized, the safety limits and safety 

analysis assumptions associated with the 

design and operation of the plant will not 

change. Structural cracks affecting both 

reservoirs have already been considered as 

described above. Accordingly, the change to 

remove the cross-tie valves does not 

introduce any new accident initiators, nor 

does it reduce or adversely affect the 

capabilities of any plant structure, system, or 

component to perform their safety function. 

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 have no adverse 

effect on plant operation. The plant response 

to the design basis accidents does not change, 

with the exception that actions to crossconnect the reservoirs are no longer 

necessary. The proposed changes do not 

adversely affect existing plant safety margins 

or the reliability of the equipment assumed 

to operate in the safety analyses. There is no 

change being made to safety analysis 

assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety 

system settings that would adversely affect 

plant safety as a result of the proposed 

changes. 

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: Jon P. 

Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 

Attorney—Regulatory, 688 WCB, One 

Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226–1279. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– 

341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: August 

14, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17226A277. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Fermi 2 Technical Specification 

5.5.7, ‘‘Ventilation Filter Testing 

Program (VFTP)’’ by adopting the 

formatting and language of the Standard 

Technical Specifications (STS) 5.5.8. 

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 aligns the 

introductory paragraph and testing 

requirements of Specification 5.5.7, 

‘‘Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),’’ 

to be consistent with the STS. The Fermi 2 

VFTP will implement the required testing of 

ESF [Emergency Safety Features] filter 

ventilation systems at the frequencies 

specified in Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 

2, and in accordance with Regulatory Guide 

1.52, Revision 2 and ASME [American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers] N510– 

1980. 

Specific frequency requirements to perform 

testing are retained either as a reference to 

Regulatory Guide requirements and general 

requirements in Surveillance Requirement 

(SR) 3.0.1 or in the licensee-controlled VFTP. 

Implementation of these requirements will be 

in the licensee-controlled VFTP. The VFTP 

will be maintained in accordance with 10 

CFR 50.59. 

Since SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] and 

CREF [Control Room Emergency Filtration] 

are ESF systems and not accident initiators, 

the probability of an accident evaluated in 

the UFSAR [updated final safety analysis 

report] will not be increased. As such, the 

probability of occurrence for a previously 

analyzed accident is not significantly 

increased. 

The consequences of a previously analyzed 

event are dependent on the initial conditions 

assumed for the analysis and the availability 

and successful functioning of the equipment 

assumed to operate in response to the 

analyzed event. The proposed change does 

not affect the performance of any credited 

equipment, and the details of testing do not 

alter the assumptions made in the safety 

analysis. As such, the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated are not 

significantly increased. 

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 involve a 

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

or different type of equipment will be 

installed) or a change to the methods 

governing normal plant operation. The 

changes do not alter the assumptions made 

in the safety analysis. 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 revises TS 5.5.7, 

‘‘Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),’’ 

to be consistent with the STS. The proposed 

change will not reduce a margin of safety 

because it has no effect on any safety analysis 

assumption. In addition, no regulatory 

requirements are being removed, but are 

either being replaced with references to be 

performed as described in Regulatory Guide 

1.52, Revision 2, and the requirements of SR 

3.0.1 or are being held in the licenseecontrolled VFTP. Therefore, this proposed 

change does not involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

Based on the above, DTE concludes that 

the proposed amendment does not involve a 

significant hazards consideration under the 

standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 

accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant 

hazards consideration’’ is justified. 

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: Jon P. 

Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 

Attorney—Regulatory, 688 WCB, One 

Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226–1279. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham 

Counties, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: June 5, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17156A216. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant 

(HNP), Unit 1, Technical Specification 

(TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 

established for the Emergency Diesel 

Generators (EDGs). The proposed 

changes will restrict the steady-state 

voltage and frequency limits for EDG 

operation to ensure that accident 

mitigation equipment can perform as 

designed. The proposed changes would 

also increase the voltage limit for the 

EDG full load rejection test. 

44852 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 

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? 

The LAR [license amendment request] 

proposes to provide voltage and frequency 

limits that are more restrictive for the steadystate operation of the EDGs than the current 

TS limits and proposes a change in the 

voltage limit following a load rejection. The 

current steady-state voltage limit is plus or 

minus 10% of the nominal EDG voltage (6900 

± 690 volts) and the current steady-state 

frequency limit is plus or minus 2% of the 

nominal frequency (60 ± 1.2 hertz). The 

proposed voltage limit is plus or minus 4% 

of the nominal EDG voltage (6900 ± 276 

volts) and the proposed frequency limit is 

plus or minus 0.8% of the nominal frequency 

(60 ± 0.48 hertz). The voltage limit following 

a load rejection is being changed from 110% 

of the EDG voltage at the start of the test to 

8,280 volts at any time during the test, which 

is 120% of the EDG nominal voltage rating. 

More restrictive voltage and frequency 

limits for the output of the EDG restores 

design margin and provides assurance that 

the equipment supplied by the EDG will 

operate correctly and within the assumed 

timeframe to perform their mitigating 

functions. Testing results have been reviewed 

to verify that the proposed voltage and 

frequency limits are reasonable for the 

performance characteristics of the EDGs. 

The technical analysis performed to 

support the change in the voltage limit 

following a load rejection has demonstrated 

that the EDGs can withstand voltages at the 

new proposed maximum voltage limit 

without a loss of protection. The proposed 

higher limit will continue to provide 

assurance that the EDGs are protected, and 

the safety function of the EDGs will be 

unaffected by the proposed change. 

The EDGs are safety-related components 

that function to mitigate the impact of an 

accident with a concurrent loss of offsite 

power. A loss of offsite power is typically a 

significant contributor to postulated plant 

risk and, as such, onsite alternating current 

(AC) EDGs have to be maintained available 

and reliable in the event of a loss of offsite 

power event. The EDGs are not initiators for 

any analyzed accident; therefore, the 

probability for an accident that was 

previously evaluated is not increased by the 

proposed changes. The proposed voltage and 

frequency limits will ensure the EDGs will 

remain capable of performing their design 

function. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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? 

The LAR proposes to provide voltage and 

frequency limits that are more restrictive for 

the steady-state operation of the EDGs than 

the current TS limits and proposes a change 

in the voltage limit following a load rejection. 

The voltage and frequency limits were 

established for the steady-state operation 

voltage and frequency limits, using verified 

design calculations and the guidance of NRC 

Administrative Letter 98–10 (Nuclear 

Document System (NUDOCS) [ADAMS 

Legacy Library] Accession Number 

9812280273). These limits will ensure the 

EDGs will perform as designed. No new 

configuration is established by this change. 

The proposed higher limit for the EDG 

voltage limit following a load rejection will 

continue to provide assurance that the EDGs 

are protected, and the safety function of the 

EDGs will be unaffected by the proposed 

change. The proposed increase in the TS SR 

limit does not affect the interaction of the 

EDGs with any system whose failure or 

malfunction can initiate an accident. 

The change does not involve a physical 

modification of the plant. There are no 

alterations to the parameters within which 

the plant is normally operated. No changes 

are being proposed to the procedures relied 

upon to mitigate a design basis event. The 

change does not have a detrimental impact 

on the manner in which plant equipment 

operates or responds to an actuation signal. 

Therefore, no new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated can 

be created. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

The LAR proposes to provide voltage and 

frequency limits that are more restrictive for 

the steady-state operation of the EDGs than 

the current TS limits and proposes a change 

in the voltage limit following a load rejection. 

The proposed TS limits on voltage and 

frequency will ensure that the EDG will be 

able to perform all design functions assumed 

in the accident analyses. The change in the 

acceptance criteria for specific surveillance 

testing provides assurance that the EDGs will 

be capable of performing their design 

function. Previous test history has shown 

that the proposed limits are well within the 

capability of the EDGs. 

There will be no effect on those plant 

systems necessary to assure the 

accomplishment of protection functions 

associated with reactor operation or the 

reactor coolant system. There will be no 

impact on safety limits and the associated 

margin of safety. 

The proposed changes do not eliminate 

any surveillance or alter the frequency of 

surveillance required by HNP TS. The more 

restrictive EDG voltage and frequency limits 

for steady-state operation and the increase in 

the TS SR voltage limit for the EDGs 

following a load rejection will not affect the 

ability of the EDGs to perform their safety 

function. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. 

Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 

Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon 

St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: July 13, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17198A020. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would delete 

the cyber security plan license 

condition for the Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station (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. 

Spent fuel at VY is stored in the spent fuel 

pool (SFP) and in the independent spent fuel 

storage installation (ISFSI). In this 

configuration, the spectrum of possible 

accidents transients and accidents is 

significantly reduced compared to an 

operating nuclear power reactor. The design 

basis accident evaluated in Section 6 of the 

VY Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) 

is the fuel handling accident (FHA), which is 

predicated on spent fuel being stored in the 

SFP. Due to fuel decay since permanent 

cessation of reactor operations, the risk of an 

offsite radiological release is also 

significantly lower. 

This proposed change does not alter the 

FHA analysis assumptions, introduce or alter 

any initiators, or affect the function of facility 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

relied upon to prevent or mitigate any 

previously evaluated accident or the manner 

in which these SSCs are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not involve any 

facility modifications which affect the 

performance capability of any SSCs relied 

upon to prevent or mitigate the consequences 

of any previously evaluated accidents. 

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? 

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 44853 

Response: No. 

This proposed change does not alter 

accident analysis assumptions, introduce or 

alter any initiators, or affect the function of 

facility SSCs relied upon to prevent or 

mitigate any previously evaluated accident, 

or the manner in which these SSCs are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

inspected. The proposed change does not 

involve any facility modifications which 

affect the performance capability of any SSCs 

relied upon to mitigate the consequences of 

previously evaluated 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 accident 

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, and as described in the 

Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR). The 

proposed change does not involve any 

changes to the initial conditions that 

establish safety margins, and does not 

involve modifications to any SSCs which are 

relied upon to provide a margin of safety. 

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 Ave. 

NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 

20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: July 20, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17206A200. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Operating License and the 

Permanently Defueled Technical 

Specifications (PDTS) to reflect removal 

of all spent nuclear fuel from the spent 

fuel pool (SFP) and its transfer to dry 

cask storage within an Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). 

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 amendment would modify 

the VY Renewed Facility Operating License 

(Operating License) and Permanently 

Defueled Technical Specifications (PDTS), or 

Technical Specifications (TS), by deleting the 

portions of the Operating License and PDTS 

that are no longer applicable to a facility with 

no spent nuclear fuel stored in the SFP, 

while modifying the remaining portions to 

correspond to all nuclear fuel stored within 

an ISFSI. This amendment will be 

implemented within 60 days following 

ENO’s notification to the NRC that all spent 

fuel assemblies have been transferred out of 

the SFP and placed in dry storage within the 

ISFSI. 

The definition of safety-related structures, 

systems, and components (SSCs) in 10 CFR 

50.2 states that safety-related SSCs are those 

relied on to remain functional during and 

following design basis events to assure: 

(1) The integrity of the reactor coolant 

boundary; 

(2) The capability to shutdown the reactor 

and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition; 

or 

(3) The capability to prevent or mitigate the 

consequences of accidents which could 

result in potential offsite exposures 

comparable to the applicable guideline 

exposures set forth in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) or 

100.11. 

The first two criteria (integrity of the 

reactor coolant pressure boundary and safe 

shutdown of the reactor) are not applicable 

to a plant in a permanently defueled 

condition. The third criterion is related to 

preventing or mitigating the consequences of 

accidents that could result in potential offsite 

exposures exceeding limits. However, after 

all nuclear spent fuel assemblies have been 

transferred to dry cask storage within an 

ISFSI, none of the SSCs at VY are required 

to be relied on for accident mitigation. 

Therefore, none of the SSCs at VY meet the 

definition of a safety-related SSC stated in 10 

CFR 50.2. The proposed deletion of 

requirements in the PDTS does not affect 

systems credited in any accident analysis at 

VY. 

Section 6 of the VY Defueled Safety 

Analysis Report (DSAR) described the design 

basis accidents (DBAs) related to the SFP. 

These postulated accidents are predicated on 

spent fuel being stored in the SFP. With the 

removal of the spent fuel from the SFP, there 

are no remaining spent fuel assemblies to be 

monitored and there are no credible 

accidents that require the actions of a 

Certified Fuel Handler, Shift Manager, or a 

Non-certified Operator to prevent occurrence 

or mitigate the consequences of an accident. 

The proposed changes do not have an 

adverse impact on the remaining 

decommissioning activities or any of their 

postulated consequences. The proposed 

changes related to the relocation of certain 

administrative requirements do not affect 

operating procedures or administrative 

controls that have the function of preventing 

or mitigating any accidents applicable to the 

safe management of irradiated fuel or 

decommissioning of the facility. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 changes eliminate the 

operational requirements and certain design 

requirements associated with the storage of 

the spent fuel in the SFP, and relocate certain 

administrative controls to the Quality 

Assurance Program Manual or other licenseecontrolled process. 

After the removal of the spent fuel from the 

SFP and transfer to the ISFSI, there are no 

spent fuel assemblies that remain in the SFP. 

Coupled with a prohibition against storage of 

fuel in the SFP, the potential for fuel related 

accidents is removed. The proposed changes 

do not introduce any new failure modes. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 removal of all spent nuclear fuel from 

the SFP into storage in casks within an ISFSI, 

coupled with a prohibition against future 

storage of fuel within the SFP, removes the 

potential for fuel related accidents. 

The design basis and accident assumptions 

within the VY DSAR and the PDTS relating 

to safe management and safety of spent fuel 

in the SFP are no longer applicable. The 

proposed changes do not affect remaining 

plant operations, systems, or components 

supporting decommissioning activities. 

The requirements for systems, structures, 

and components (SSCs) that have been 

removed from the VY PDTS are not credited 

in the existing accident analysis for any 

applicable postulated accident; and as such, 

do not contribute to the margin of safety 

associated with the accident analysis. 

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: Ms. Susan 

Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy 

Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 

20001. 

44854 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 

NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: July 31, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17213A049. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

description for the Emergency Response 

Organization (ERO) requalification 

training frequency in the Emergency 

Plan from annually to ‘‘once per 

calendar year not to exceed 18 months 

between training sessions.’’ 

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 only affects the 

administrative aspects of the annual ERO 

requalification training frequency 

requirements and not the content of the 

training. The proposed change does not 

involve the modification of any plant 

equipment or affect plan operation. The 

proposed change will have no impact on any 

safety-related Structures, Systems, or 

Components (SSC). 

The proposed change would revise the 

ERO requalification frequency from an 

annual basis to once per calendar year not to 

exceed 18 months between training sessions 

as defined in the FitzPatrick Emergency Plan. 

The proposed change will support aligning 

the FitzPatrick training with the rest of the 

Exelon fleet under one standard regarding the 

annual requalification training frequency of 

personnel assigned Exelon ERO positions. 

Therefore, the proposed change to the 

Emergency Plan requalification training 

frequency for the affected site 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 has no impact on the 

design, function, or operation of any plant 

SSC. The proposed change does not affect 

plant equipment or accident analyses. The 

proposed change only affects the 

administrative aspects related to the annual 

ERO requalification training frequency 

requirements. There are no changes in the 

content of the training being proposed under 

this submittal. The proposed change will 

support aligning the FitzPatrick training with 

the rest of the Exelon fleet under one 

standard regarding the annual requalification 

training frequency of personnel assigned 

Exelon ERO positions. 

Therefore, the proposed change to the 

Emergency Plan requalification training 

frequency for the affected site 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 only affects the 

administrative aspects of the annual ERO 

requalification training frequency 

requirements and does not change the 

training content. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect existing plant safety 

margins or the reliability of the equipment 

assumed to operate in the safety analyses. 

There is no change being made to safety 

analysis assumptions, safety limits, or 

limiting safety system settings that would 

adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 

proposed change. Margins of safety are 

unaffected by the proposed change to the 

frequency in the ERO requalification training 

requirements. 

Therefore, the proposed change to the 

Emergency Plan requalification training 

frequency for the affected site 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: Donald P. 

Ferraro, Assistant General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 

Exelon Way, Suite 305, Kennett Square, 

PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: June 28, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17179A161. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

licensing basis by adding a license 

condition to allow for the 

implementation of the provisions of 10 

CFR 50.69. 

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 will permit the use 

of a risk-informed categorization process to 

modify the scope of SSCs [structures, 

systems, and components] subject to NRC 

special treatment requirements and to 

implement alternative treatments per the 

regulations. 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 will 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 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 44855 

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: James G. Danna. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: August 4, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17216A236. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendments 

would modify the non-destructive 

examination (NDE) inspection interval 

for Special Lifting Devices from 

annually or prior to each use, typically 

at each refueling outage, to a 10-year 

interval. 

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 does not impact the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated as it only modifies an already 

existing NDE inspection interval and does 

not change the manner in which heavy loads 

are handled using these devices. 

The proposed change also does not 

significantly increase the probability of a 

previously evaluated accident as significant 

structural margins and high strength 

materials were used in excess of those 

specified in ANSI [American National 

Standards Institute] N14.6–1978. 

Additionally, the use of each device is 

infrequent and concerns of degradation due 

to fatigue are negligible, especially when 

compared to what is possible for the type of 

devices for which ANSI N14.6–1978 and its 

corresponding NDE inspection interval were 

originally intended. Continued visual 

inspections and dimensional testing 

consistent with ANSI N14.6–1978 on a 

periodicity of annually or prior to each use, 

typically at each outage, will continue to 

provide a high degree of probability that any 

flaws will be detected and addressed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change impacts the 

frequency of NDE inspections on the Special 

Lifting Devices. The proposed change, by its 

nature, does not alter the manner in which 

the devices are used and does not involve a 

physical change to the devices. It also does 

not change the manner in which heavy loads 

are handled using these devices. 

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 impact the 

designs or usage of the devices in any 

manner and, therefore, has no impact on the 

margins of safety for those designs. It 

modifies the frequency at which NDE 

inspections on major load carrying welds and 

other critical members are performed. 

However, given the evaluation of available 

past NDE inspection results, use of sufficient 

design margins and high strength materials, 

infrequent use and continued visual 

inspection and dimensional testing 

consistent with ANSI N14.6–1978, the 

proposed change will not result in any 

appreciable reduction in the reliability of the 

Special Lifting Devices load handling 

capabilities when contrasted with the 

frequency stipulated by ANSI N14.6–1978. 

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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

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. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick 

County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

September 28, 2016, as supplemented 

by letters dated March 25, 2017, and 

May 24, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified the Technical 

Specification-required action end states 

consistent with the NRC-approved 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–423–A, Revision 

1, ‘‘Technical Specifications End States, 

NEDC 32988–A,’’ dated December 22, 

2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML093570241), as described in the 

Notice of Availability published in the 

Federal Register on February 18, 2011 

(76 FR 9614). Changes to the Brunswick 

Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Technical Specifications for selected 

required action end states allow entry 

into hot shutdown rather than cold 

shutdown to repair equipment if risk is 

assessed and managed consistent with 

the program in place for complying with 

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). 

Date of issuance: August 29, 2017. 

44856 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 

Effective date: As of date of issuance 

and shall be implemented within 120 

days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 280 (Unit 1) and 

308 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17180A596; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

71 and DPR–62: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 

87968). The supplemental letters dated 

March 25 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 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 29, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick 

County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: October 

27, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the technical 

specifications (TSs) Sections 1.3, 

‘‘Completion Times,’’ and 3.0, ‘‘Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 

Applicability’’ and ‘‘Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) Applicability.’’ The 

changes clarify and expand the use and 

application of the plant’s TS usage 

rules. The changes are consistent with 

the NRC-approved Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–529, Revision 4, ‘‘Clarify 

Use and Application Rules’’ dated 

February 29, 2016. 

Date of issuance: September 6, 2017. 

Effective date: As of date of issuance 

and shall be implemented within 90 

days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit 1) and 

309 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17186A219; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–71 and DPR–62: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 

13665). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 

2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of amendment request: 

September 22, 2016, as supplemented 

by letters dated November 10, 2016, and 

March 22, 2017. Publicly-available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML16266A086, 

ML16315A112, and ML17081A303, 

respectively. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Calvert Cliffs 

Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.8, 

‘‘Control Room Recirculation Signal 

(CRRS),’’ and TS 3.7.8, ‘‘Control Room 

Emergency Ventilation System 

(CREVS),’’ to remove certain CREVS 

components and their associated testing, 

which no longer serve the purpose of 

establishing and isolating the control 

room boundary. 

Date of issuance: August 30, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 321 (Unit 1) and 

299 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17209A620; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR 

8870). The supplemental letter dated 

March 22, 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 30, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: 

September 12, 2016, as supplemented 

by letters dated November 21, 2016, and 

April 24, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the allowable 

value for detecting a loss of voltage on 

the 4160 volt essential service system 

buses. 

Date of issuance: September 11, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to entering Mode 4 following the 

spring 2018 refueling outage for Unit 2, 

and prior to entering Mode 4 following 

the spring 2019 refueling outage for Unit 

1. 

Amendment Nos.: 268 (Unit 1) and 

263 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17208A297; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–29 and DPR–30: Amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 20, 2016 (81 FR 

92867). The supplemental letters dated 

November 21, 2016, and April 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 staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Ogle County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, 

Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 44857 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and No. 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine 

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 

2, Oswego County, New York 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island 

Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: March 

28, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise and clarify the 

technical specification usage rules for 

completion times, limiting conditions 

for operation, and surveillance 

requirements. 

Date of issuance: August 31, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 194/194; 200/200; 

322/300; 213; 255/248; 224/210; 226/ 

189; 229/163; 314/318; 267/262; 126; 

and 292. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17163A355. Documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72, NPF–77, NPF–37, NPF–66, DPR–53, 

DPR–69, NPF–62, DPR–19, DPR–25, 

NPF–11, NPF–18, NPF–39, NPF–85, 

DPR–63, NPF–69, DPR–44, DPR–56, 

DPR–29, DPR–30, DPR–18, and DPR–50: 

Amendments revised the Facility 

Operating Licenses and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 9, 2017 (82 FR 21558). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated August 31, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

11, 2015, as supplemented by letters 

dated October 27, 2015; March 16, April 

4, June 17, August 12, September 20, 

and November 16, 2016; and February 6, 

April 4, and May 11, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements related 

to direct current (DC) electrical systems 

in TS Limiting Condition for Operation 

(LCO) 3.8.4, ‘‘DC Sources—Operating,’’ 

LCO 3.8.5, ‘‘DC Sources—Shutdown,’’ 

and LCO 3.8.6, ‘‘Battery Cell 

Parameters.’’ The amendments also 

added a new requirement, TS 5.5.15, 

‘‘Battery Monitoring and Maintenance 

Program,’’ to TS 5.5, ‘‘Administrative 

Controls—Programs and Manuals.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 29, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit 1) and 

232 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17208A231; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36623). 

The supplemental letters dated June 17, 

August 12, September 20, and 

November 16, 2016; and February 6, 

April 4, and May 11, 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 29, 

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 amendment request: 

November 15, 2016, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 13, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the TS 

requirements to operate ventilation 

systems with charcoal filters from 10 

hours to 15 minutes each month in 

accordance with TSTF–522, Revision 0, 

‘‘Revise Ventilation System Surveillance 

Requirements to Operate for 10 hours 

per Month.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 31, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 189 and 172. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17186A276; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 28, 2017 (82 FR 

12135). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 

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 amendment request: 

November 15, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the technical 

specifications by relocating references to 

specific American Society for Testing 

and Materials standards for fuel oil 

testing to licensee-controlled documents 

and adding alternate criteria to the 

‘‘clear and bright’’ acceptance test for 

new fuel oil. The change is in 

accordance with Technical 

Specification Task Force Traveler 374, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Revision to TS 5.5.13 and 

Associated TS Bases for Diesel Fuel 

Oil.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 31, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within [licensee requested number] days 

of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 190 and 173. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17208B018; 

44858 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2017 / Notices 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 28, 2017 (82 FR 

12136). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 

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 amendment request: 

November 15, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments add technical 

specifications requirements for 

unavailable barriers by adding Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.10 as 

described as LCO 3.0.9 in TSTF–427, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Allowance for Non 

Technical Specification Barrier 

Degradation on Supported System 

OPERABILITY.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 5, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 191 and 174. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17198B633; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 28, 2017 (82 FR 

12137). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 5, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day 

of September 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kathryn Brock, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20475 Filed 9–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0153] 

Draft Fiscal Years 2018–2022 Strategic 

Plan 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft NUREG; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is requesting 

comment on draft NUREG–1614, 

Volume 7, ‘‘Draft Strategic Plan: Fiscal 

Years 2018–2022.’’ The draft Strategic 

Plan provides the agency’s strategic 

goals and objectives and proposed 

strategies for achieving them. The NRC 

encourages and welcomes public 

comments that can help it respond to 

challenges and shape its strategic 

direction over the next four years, 

particularly comments on the plan’s 

goals, objectives, and strategies. 

DATES: Submit comments by October 26, 

2017. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC is only able to ensure 

consideration of comments received on 

or before this date. 

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–2017–0153. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

notice. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

TWFN–08–D36M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on accessing 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Accessing Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June 

Cai, Office of the Executive Director for 

Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–1771; email: 

June.Cai@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Accessing Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Accessing Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0153 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

draft Strategic Plan. You may access 

publicly-available information related to 

this action by the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0153. 

• 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 WBA 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 draft Strategic Plan is 

available in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17254A104. 

• 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. 

• NRC’s Public Web site: The NRC’s 

draft Strategic Plan may be viewed 

online on the NRC’s Public Web site on 

the Documents for Comment Web page 

at https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

doc-comment.html, under ‘‘Draft 

NUREG-Series Publications.’’ 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0153 in the subject line of your 

comment submission in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS.