47032 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 

action on possible noncompliance, and 

examining facts following an incident. 

Therefore, their retention would not 

serve the underlying purpose of the 

rule. Once removed from licensing basis 

documents, SSCs are no longer 

governed by the NRC’s regulations, and 

therefore, are not subject to compliance 

with the safety and health aspects of the 

nuclear environment. Therefore, 

retention of these records does not serve 

the underlying purpose of the rule of 

maintaining compliance with the safety 

and health aspects of the nuclear 

environment or to accomplish the NRC’s 

mission. 

Records, which continue to serve the 

underlying purpose of the rule, that is, 

to maintain compliance and to protect 

public health and safety, will continue 

to be retained under regulations in 10 

CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. These 

retained records not subject to the 

exemption include those associated 

with programmatic controls, such as 

those pertaining to residual 

radioactivity, security, quality 

assurance, etc., and records associated 

with the ISFSI and spent fuel 

assemblies. 

Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) states, in part, 

‘‘Special circumstance are present 

whenever—. . . (iii) Compliance would 

result in undue hardship or other costs 

that are significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulation was 

adopted . . . .’’ 

The retention of records required by 

10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion 

XVII, 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), and 10 CFR 

50.71(c) provides assurance that records 

associated with SSCs will be captured, 

indexed, and stored in an 

environmentally suitable and retrievable 

condition. Given the volume of records 

associated with the SSCs, compliance 

with the records retention rules results 

in a considerable cost to the licensee. 

Retention of the volume of records 

associated with these SSCs during the 

operations phase is appropriate to serve 

the underlying purpose of providing 

information to the Commission for 

examination in the case of an event, 

incident, or other problem involving the 

public health and safety, as discussed 

above. However, the cost effect of 

retaining operations phase records 

beyond the operations phase until the 

termination of the license was not fully 

considered or understood. Therefore, 

compliance with the rule would result 

in an undue cost in excess of that 

contemplated when the rule was 

adopted. 

The granted exemptions apply to 

records that are associated with SSCs 

that had supported the operations phase 

of electricity generation and wet storage 

of spent fuel assemblies, and that have 

been, or will be, retired in place, 

prepared for dismantlement, and 

removed from licensing basis 

documents. Records that continue to 

apply to retired SSCs during the 

SAFSTOR and decommissioning phase, 

such as records associated with 

programmatic controls pertaining to 

residual radioactivity, security, quality 

assurance, etc., and records associated 

with the ISFSI and spent fuel 

assemblies, will continue to be 

maintained in an environmentally 

suitable and retrievable condition. 

Environmental Considerations 

Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting 

of an exemption from the requirements 

of any regulation in 10 CFR Chapter I is 

a categorical exclusion provided that (i) 

there is no significant hazards 

consideration; (ii) there is no significant 

change in the types or significant 

increase in the amounts of any effluents 

that may be released offsite; (iii) there is 

no significant increase in individual or 

cumulative public or occupational 

radiation exposure; (iv) there is no 

significant construction impact; (v) 

there is no significant increase in the 

potential for or consequences from 

radiological accidents; and (vi) the 

requirements from which an exemption 

is sought are among those identified in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi). 

The Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, has determined that 

approval of the exemption request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration because allowing the 

licensee exemption from the 

recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 

part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 

CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c), at 

the permanently shutdown and 

defueled FCS does 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. Accordingly, there is 

no significant change in the types or 

significant increase in the amounts of 

any effluents that may be released 

offsite, and no significant increase in 

individual or cumulative public or 

occupational radiation exposure. The 

exempted regulation is not associated 

with construction, so there is no 

significant construction impact. The 

exempted regulation does not concern 

the source term (i.e., potential amount 

of radiation in an accident), nor 

mitigation. Therefore, there is no 

significant increase in the potential for, 

or consequences from radiological 

accidents. 

Allowing the licensee partial 

exemption from record retention 

requirements from which the exemption 

is sought involve recordkeeping 

requirements, reporting requirements of 

an administrative, managerial, or 

organizational nature. 

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 

51.22(b) and 51.22(c)(25), no 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment need be 

prepared in connection with the 

approval of this exemption request. 

IV. Conclusions 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12, part 50, appendix B, Criterion 

XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 

50.71(c) are authorized by law, will not 

present an undue risk to the public 

health and safety, and are consistent 

with the common defense and security. 

Also, special circumstances are present. 

Therefore, the Commission hereby 

grants OPPD’s partial exemptions from 

10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion 

XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 

50.71(c) to advance the schedule to 

remove records associated with SSCs 

that have been removed from the NRC’s 

licensing basis documents by 

appropriate change mechanisms. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of October 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Anne T. Boland, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21762 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0201] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses 

Involving No Significant Hazards 

Considerations 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Biweekly notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

publishing this regular biweekly notice. 

The Act requires the Commission to 

publish notice of any amendments 

issued, or proposed to be issued, and 

grants the Commission the authority to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 47033 

issue and make immediately effective 

any amendment to an operating license 

or combined license, as applicable, 

upon a determination by the 

Commission that such amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, notwithstanding the 

pendency before the Commission of a 

request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued, from September 

12, 2017, to September 25, 2017. The 

last biweekly notice was published on 

September 26, 2017. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

November 9, 2017. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by December 11, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0201. 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: 

Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0201, 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–2017–0201. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

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

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

it is mentioned in this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0201, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. If 

the Commission takes action prior to the 

expiration of either the comment period 

or the notice period, it will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

issuance. If the Commission makes a 

final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
47034 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 

will rule on the petition and, if 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 

fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 

CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene. Parties have the opportunity 

to participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that party’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence, consistent with the NRC’s 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

Petitions must be filed no later than 

60 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. Petitions and motions for 

leave to file new or amended 

contentions that are filed after the 

deadline will not be entertained absent 

a determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition 

must be filed in accordance with the 

filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic 

Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this 

document. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to 

establish when the hearing is held. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

and make it immediately effective, 

notwithstanding the request for a 

hearing. Any hearing would take place 

after issuance of the amendment. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves a 

significant hazards consideration, then 

any hearing held would take place 

before the issuance of the amendment 

unless the Commission finds an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public, in which case it will issue 

an appropriate order or rule under 10 

CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition 

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

The petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions set 

forth in this section, except that under 

10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local 

governmental body, or federally 

recognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof does not need to address the 

standing requirements in 10 CFR 

2.309(d) if the facility is located within 

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, 

local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may participate as a non-party 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who is not a party to the proceeding and 

is not affiliated with or represented by 

a party may, at the discretion of the 

presiding officer, be permitted to make 

a limited appearance pursuant to the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 

making a limited appearance may make 

an oral or written statement of his or her 

position on the issues but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to the 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the presiding officer. Details 

regarding the opportunity to make a 

limited appearance will be provided by 

the presiding officer if such sessions are 

scheduled. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing and petition for 

leave to intervene (petition), any motion 

or other document filed in the 

proceeding prior to the submission of a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities that 

request to participate under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 

with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Detailed guidance on 

making electronic submissions may be 

found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the 

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

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may not submit paper copies of their 

filings unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 47035 

a docket has been created, the 

participant can then submit 

adjudicatory documents. Submissions 

must be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF 

submissions is available on the NRC’s 

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

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

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

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

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

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

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the document on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed so that they can 

obtain access to the documents via the 

E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

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

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

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

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted by: (1) First class 

mail addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

documents in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at https://

adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission 

or the presiding officer. If you do not 

have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate 

as described above, click cancel when 

the link requests certificates and you 

will be automatically directed to the 

NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where 

you will be able to access any 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. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. 

(DNC), Docket Nos. 50–245, 50–336, and 

50–423, Millstone Power Station, Unit 

Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London County, 

Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: June 15, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17171A232. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for 

Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, 

and 3, by administratively changing the 

company name ‘‘Dominion Nuclear 

Connecticut, Inc.’’ with ‘‘Dominion 

Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.’’ 

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 amendment to each license 

is administrative in nature. DNC, which will 

be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear 

Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee 

authorized to operate and possess the units, 

and its functions, powers, resources and 

management will not change. The proposed 

changes do not adversely affect accident 

initiators or precursors, and do not alter the 

design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the plant or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The ability of structures, systems, and 

components to perform their intended safety 

functions is not altered or prevented by the 

proposed changes, and the assumptions used 

in determining the radiological consequences 

of previously evaluated accidents are not 

affected. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to each license 

is purely administrative in nature. The 

functions of the licensee will not change. 

These changes do not involve any physical 

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

different type of equipment will be installed), 

and installed equipment is not being 

operated in a new or different manner. Thus, 

no new failure modes are introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in the margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to each license 

is administrative in nature. DNC, which will 

be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear 

Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee 

authorized to operate and possess the units, 

and its functions will not change. The 

proposed changes do not alter the manner in 

which safety limits, limiting safety system 

settings, or limiting conditions for operation 

are determined. There are no changes to 

setpoints at which protective actions are 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
47036 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 

initiated, and the operability requirements 

for equipment assumed to operate for 

accident mitigation are not affected. 

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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Energy, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS–2, 

Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 

(ANO–1), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: July 17, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17198F072. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) for 

ANO–1 and would establish a new 

Completion Time in ANO–1 TS 3.7.5, 

‘‘Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System,’’ 

where one steam supply to the turbine 

driven EFW pump is inoperable 

concurrent with an inoperable motordriven EFW train. The amendment 

would also establish changes to the TSs 

that establish specific Actions: (1) For 

when the motor driven EFW train is 

inoperable at the same time and; (2) for 

when the turbine-driven EFW train is 

inoperable either (a) due solely to one 

inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to 

reasons other than one inoperable steam 

supply. 

The amendment request was 

submitted in accordance with NRCapproved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–412, 

Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One 

Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW 

[Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump 

Inoperable,’’ with certain plant-specific 

deviations identified in the application. 

The availability of this TS improvement 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 17, 2007 (72 FR 39089), as part 

of the consolidated line item 

improvement process (CLIIP). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee affirmed the applicability of the 

model no significant hazards 

consideration determination, which is 

presented below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater 

(AFW/EFW) System is not an initiator of any 

design basis accident or event, and therefore 

the proposed changes do not increase the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed changes to address 

the condition of one or two motor driven 

AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine 

driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one 

steam supply inoperable do not change the 

response of the plant to any accidents. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed changes do not adversely affect 

the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) to perform their intended 

safety function to mitigate the consequences 

of an initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The proposed changes do 

not affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release assumptions 

used in evaluating the radiological 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do 

not increase the types and amounts of 

radioactive effluent that may be released 

offsite, nor significantly increase individual 

or cumulative occupational/public radiation 

exposures. 

Therefore, the changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any 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 do not result in a 

change in the manner in which the AFW/ 

EFW System provides plant protection. The 

AFW/EFW System will continue to supply 

water to the steam generators to remove 

decay heat and other residual heat by 

delivering at least the minimum required 

flow rate to the steam generators. There are 

no design changes associated with the 

proposed changes. The changes to the 

Conditions and Required Actions do not 

change any existing accident scenarios, nor 

create any new or different accident 

scenarios. 

The changes do not involve a physical 

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

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. In addition, the changes do 

not impose any new or different 

requirements or eliminate any existing 

requirements. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 

proposed changes are consistent with the 

safety analysis assumptions and current plant 

operating practice. 

Therefore, the changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not impacted by these 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

result in plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. 

Therefore, it is concluded that the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Anna 

Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 

Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 

20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 

(ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: July 17, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17198F356. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

technical specifications (TSs) for ANO– 

2 by establishing Actions and Allowable 

Outage Times in TS 3.7.1.2, ‘‘Emergency 

Feedwater [EFW] System,’’ for several 

combinations of inoperable EFW trains, 

consistent with NUREG–1432, 

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications for 

Combustion Engineering Plants,’’ 

Revision 4. Revision 4 of NUREG–1432 

includes changes incorporated by 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF)-340, Revision 3, ‘‘Allow 7 Day 

Completion Time for a Turbine-Driven 

AFW [Auxiliary Feedwater] Pump 

Inoperable,’’ and TSTF–412, Revision 3, 

‘‘Provide Actions for One Steam Supply 

to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump 

Inoperable.’’ Certain proposed 

deviations from the NUREG–1432, 

Revision 4, TS changes are identified in 

the application. 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 47037 

The proposed changes clarify the 

operability requirements of the EFW system 

and provide appropriate remedial actions to 

be performed respective to potential EFW 

configurations or out-of-service periods, 

consistent with the STS [standard technical 

specifications]. The EFW system is not an 

initiator of any design basis accident or event 

and, therefore, the proposed changes do not 

increase the probability of any accident 

previously evaluated. The EFW system is 

used to respond to accidents previously 

evaluated. The proposed change affects only 

the actions taken when portions of the EFW 

system are unavailable and does not affect 

the design of the EFW system. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed changes do not adversely affect 

the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) to perform their intended 

safety function to mitigate the consequences 

of an initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The proposed changes do 

not affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release assumptions 

used in evaluating the radiological 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do 

not increase the types and amounts of 

radioactive effluent that may be released 

offsite, nor significantly increase individual 

or cumulative occupational/public radiation 

exposures. 

Therefore, this change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not result in a 

change in the manner in which the EFW 

system provides plant protection. The EFW 

system will continue to supply water to the 

Steam Generators (SGs) to remove decay heat 

and other residual heat by delivering at least 

the minimum required flow rate to the SGs. 

There are no design changes associated with 

the proposed changes. The changes to the 

related TS Actions do not change any 

existing accident scenarios, nor create any 

new or different accident scenarios. 

The changes do not involve a physical 

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

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. In addition, the changes do 

not impose any new or different 

requirements or eliminate any existing 

requirements. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. 

Therefore, this change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from an accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings, or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not impacted by these 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

result in continued plant operation in a 

configuration outside the design basis. 

Therefore, this change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Anna 

Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 

Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 

20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster 

Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: August 

30, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

available in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17242A211. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Oyster Creek Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. DPR–16, Section 

2.C, License Condition (5) by replacing 

Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Vessel and 

Internals Project technical report 

BWRVIP–18, Revision 0, as approved by 

NRC staff’s Final Safety Evaluation 

Report dated December 2, 1999, with 

the latest BWRVIP–18 revision 

approved on December 21, 2016. 

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. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the License 

Condition 2.C.(5) requirements for inspection 

of Core Spray spargers, piping and associated 

components does not alter the use of the 

inspection methods and criteria used to 

determine the capability of the Core Spray 

System to perform its intended safety 

function that have been previously reviewed 

and approved by the NRC. The proposed 

change is in accordance with an NRC 

approved inspection and flaw evaluation 

guideline and as such, maintains required 

safety margins. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect accident initiators or 

precursors, nor does it alter the design 

assumptions, conditions, or configuration of 

the facility or the manner in which the plant 

is operated and maintained. 

The proposed change does not alter or 

prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) from performing their 

intended function to mitigate the 

consequences of an initiating event within 

the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed 

change does not require any physical change 

to any plant SSCs nor does it require any 

change in systems or plant operations. The 

proposed change is consistent with the safety 

analysis assumptions and resultant 

consequences. 

Incorporating NRG-approved inspection 

frequency and criteria for Core Spray 

spargers, piping and associated components 

has no physical effect on plant equipment 

and therefore, no impact on the course of 

plant transients. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed incorporation of NRCapproved inspection frequency and criteria 

for Core Spray spargers, piping and 

associated components is a change based 

upon previously approved documents and 

does not involve changes to the plant 

hardware or its operating characteristics. As 

a result, no new failure modes are being 

introduced. There are no hardware changes 

nor are there any changes in the method by 

which any plant systems perform a safety 

function. No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 

introduced as a result of the proposed 

change. 

The proposed change does not introduce 

any new accident precursors, nor does it 

involve any physical plant alterations or 

changes in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. The change does not alter 

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. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The margin of safety is established through 

the design of the plant structures, systems, 

and components, and through the parameters 

for safe operation and setpoints for the 

actuation of equipment relied upon to 

respond to transients and design basis 

accidents. The use of inspection frequency 

and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping 

and associated components in accordance 

with NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and 

criteria provides adequate assurance that the 

Core Spray System can perform its safety 

function as required by the plant-specific 

[loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)]-analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

decrease the margin of safety. The proposed 

change in inspection criteria maintains the 

current safety margin, which protects the fuel 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
47038 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 

cladding integrity during a postulated LOCA 

event, but does not change the requirements 

governing operation or availability of safety 

equipment assumed to operate to preserve 

the margin of safety. The change does not 

alter the behavior of plant equipment, which 

remains unchanged. 

The proposed change to License Condition 

2.C.(5) is consistent with NRC-approved 

methods, guidelines, and criteria and 

provides adequate assurance that the Core 

Spray System can perform its safety function 

as required by the plant-specific LOCAanalysis. No setpoints at which protective 

actions are initiated are altered by the 

proposed change. The proposed change does 

not alter the manner in which the safety 

limits are determined. This change is 

consistent with plant design and does not 

change the Technical Specification 

operability requirements; thus, previously 

evaluated accidents are not affected by this 

proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 

1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: July 28, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17212A034. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the direct 

current (DC) battery Technical 

Specifications 3.8.2.1, 3.8.2.2, 3.8.3.1, 

and 3.8.3.2 such that a DC electrical 

train is operable with one 100 percent 

capacity battery aligned to both DC 

buses in the associated electrical train. 

The amendment also proposes to 

remove a footnote to Surveillance 

Requirement 4.8.2.1 associated with DC 

battery checks. 

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 technical specification (TS) limiting 

conditions for operation and required actions 

associated with the proposed changes to the 

TS are not initiators of any accidents 

previously evaluated, so the probability of 

accidents previously evaluated is unaffected 

by the proposed changes. The proposed 

change does not alter the design, function, or 

operation of any plant structure, system, or 

component (SSC). The capability of any 

operable TS-required SSC to perform its 

specified safety function is not impacted by 

the proposed change. As a result, the 

outcomes of accidents previously evaluated 

are unaffected. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

result in a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not challenge 

the integrity or performance of any safetyrelated systems. No plant equipment is 

installed or removed, and the changes do not 

alter the design, physical configuration, or 

method of operation of any plant SSC. 

No physical changes are made to the plant, 

so no new causal mechanisms are 

introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes 

to the TS do not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed change does not challenge 

the integrity or performance of any safetyrelated systems. No plant equipment is 

installed or removed, and the changes do not 

alter the design, physical configuration, or 

method of operation of any plant SSC. No 

physical changes are made to the plant, so no 

new causal mechanisms are introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS 

do not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The ability of any operable SSC to perform 

its designated safety function is unaffected by 

the proposed changes. The proposed changes 

do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, 

safety limits, limiting safety system settings, 

or method of operating the plant. The 

changes do not adversely affect plant 

operating margins or the reliability of 

equipment credited in the safety analyses. 

With the proposed change, each DC electrical 

trains remains fully capable of performing its 

safety function. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis, and based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William Blair, 

Managing Attorney, Florida Power & 

Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50–424, 50–425, 

52–025, and 52–026, Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, 

Burke County, Georgia 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366, 

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, City of Dalton, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

30, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17243A202. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would relocate the 

emergency operations facility for the 

eight units of the SNC nuclear fleet from 

the SNC corporate headquarters in 

Birmingham, Alabama, to a new 

location 1.3 miles away. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to relocate the 

consolidated EOF [emergency operations 

facility] within Birmingham, Alabama, 

requires no change to the required staff 

response time for supplementing onsite 

personnel in response to a radiological 

emergency. The relocated EOF is along the 

same major roadway and response personnel 

will be able to access the facility, using for 

the most part, the same path they currently 

use to travel to the corporate office. The 

license amendment does not request a change 

to the response time and the facility will be 

functional within the same timeframe as for 

the existing EOF. The functions and 

capabilities of the relocated EOF will 

continue to meet the applicable regulatory 

requirements. The proposed change has no 

effect on normal plant operation or on any 

accident initiator or precursors and does not 

impact the function of plant structures, 

systems, or components [(SSCs)]. The 

proposed change does not alter or prevent the 

ability of the emergency response 

organization to perform its intended 

functions to mitigate the consequences of an 

accident or event. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 47039 

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 only concerns 

implementation of the standard emergency 

plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short 

distance (1.3 miles) from its current location. 

The new location will not change the time 

the facility will be functional to provide 

emergency response. The functions and 

capabilities of the relocated EOF will 

continue to meet the applicable regulatory 

requirements. The proposed change will not 

change the design function or operation of 

SSCs. The change does not impact the 

accident analysis for any of the SNC nuclear 

plants. The change does not involve a 

physical alteration of any of the plants, a 

change in the method of plant operation, or 

new operator actions. The proposed change 

does not introduce failure modes that could 

result in a new accident, and the change does 

not alter assumptions made in safety 

analyses. 

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 only impacts the 

implementation of the emergency plan by 

relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance 

(1.3 miles) within Birmingham, Alabama. 

The change does not the affect staff response 

time or the time it takes to make the facility 

operational to perform its intended 

emergency response functions. The functions 

and capabilities of the relocated EOF will 

continue to meet the applicable regulatory 

requirements. Margin of safety is associated 

with confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor 

coolant system pressure boundary, and 

containment structure) to limit the level of 

radiation dose to the public. The proposed 

change is associated with the emergency plan 

and does not impact operation of the plant 

or its response to transients or accidents. The 

change does not affect Technical 

Specifications. The change does not involve 

a change in the method of plant operation, 

and accident analyses will not be affected by 

the proposed change. Safety analyses 

acceptance criteria are not affected. The 

standard emergency plan and the plant 

annexes will continue to provide the 

required response staff for performing major 

tasks for the functional areas of the 

emergency plans. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

40 Iverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35242. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

31, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17243A088. 

Description of amendment request: 

The requested amendments propose to 

depart from approved AP1000 Design 

Control Document by proposing changes 

to the combined license (COL) and the 

COL Appendix A, Technical 

Specifications. Specifically, the 

amendments, if approved, would revise 

the COL documents mentioned 

previously to reflect the proposed 

changes to the reactor coolant system 

and main steam line leakage detection 

systems for detection of leakage at all 

times and consideration of instrument 

sensitivities not accounted for. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below, with NRC staff edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The [reactor coolant system (RCS)] leakage 

detection systems provide early warning of 

abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant 

pressure boundary (RCPB) or the main steam 

lines inside containment so that actions can 

be taken to prevent pipe breaks. The change 

proposed to limiting condition for operation 

(LCO) 3.4.9 adds limited periods during 

which the containment sump level and/or 

containment atmosphere F18 particulate 

monitor are not required to be operable— 

during and for 2 hours after use of the 

containment purge flow path, and during incontainment refueling water storage tank 

(IRWST) gutter drain isolation valve closure 

and for 2 hours after reopening the valves— 

and proposes a compensatory increase in the 

frequency of the RCS inventory balance 

during these periods. Containment purge, 

containment venting and IRWST gutter drain 

isolation valve closure are evolutions 

associated with normal operating conditions. 

The probability of a leakage flaw growing to 

a size that would cause pipe failure during 

and for 2 hours after IRWST gutter drain 

isolation valve inservice testing or a 

containment venting evolution is low 

because the durations of the test and venting 

evolution are short. The probability of a 

leakage flaw growing to a size that would 

cause pipe failure during and for 2 hours 

after a containment purge operation is low 

because containment purge operations at 

power are infrequent, and because 

containment purge in preparation for 

refueling is conducted concurrent with 

operations that will put the plant in 

operating modes for which LCO 3.4.9 is not 

applicable (MODES 5 and 6). 

The RCS inventory balance method of leak 

detection is quantitative and remains 

available when the plant has been operating 

at steady state for at least 12 hours and the 

leakage instrumentation is not required to be 

operable. In addition, the leak detection 

instruments will remain functional and have 

sensitivities such that the instrumentation 

will still be useful as a leak detection aid to 

operators during a containment purge 

operation or IRWST gutter drain isolation 

valve inservice testing. The RCS leakage 

detection instrumentation is not credited 

with consequence mitigation during any 

accident previously evaluated. 

Existing Required Action A.1 is intended 

to determine whether the remaining required 

containment sump level instrument is 

functioning properly when one of the 

required instruments is inoperable. Removal 

of Required Action A.1 does not increase the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated because a new 

Surveillance Requirement is proposed which 

will provide more appropriate monitoring to 

assess operability of the remaining required 

containment sump level channel. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The failure of the leak detection systems to 

detect small leaks in the reactor coolant 

pressure boundary could lead to large 

undetected leaks and possibly a loss of 

coolant accident. Loss of coolant accidents 

for a spectrum of pipe sizes and locations are 

already postulated in [Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (UFSAR)] Chapter 15, 

Section 15.6. Breaks in the main steam lines 

inside containment are also analyzed in 

UFSAR Chapter 15, Section 15.1. 

Unidentified leakage detection and operator 

action in response to unidentified leakage are 

not postulated for any of the design basis 

accident analyses described in UFSAR 

Chapter 15. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not reduce 

RCS leakage detection instrument availability 

with respect to IRWST gutter drain isolation 

valve closure or reactor power level. The 

changes to compensate for instrument 

sensitivities during containment purge 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
47040 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 

operation do not represent a significant 

portion of the expected operating time in 

MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. The containment purge 

isolation valves are opened temporarily 

during plant startup to relieve containment 

pressure increase due to thermal expansion. 

Containment purge during power operation 

may be required to support containment 

entry—which is infrequent. The containment 

purge flow paths are also used for venting the 

containment atmosphere to control 

containment pressure differential as weather 

changes affect ambient pressure. When the 

containment purge system is not being used 

to support personnel access into containment 

or to control the containment atmospheric 

pressure, the containment air filtration 

system containment isolation valves are 

maintained in their normally closed position. 

The IRWST gutter drain isolation valves are 

cycled quarterly, but are normally 

maintained in the open position. Therefore, 

use of the containment purge flow paths and 

closure of the IRWST gutter drain isolation 

valves do not represent a significant portion 

of the time in power operation. In addition, 

the action to perform a RCS inventory 

balance on a greater frequency during these 

evolutions will provide more appropriate 

monitoring to assess operability of the leak 

detection instrumentation. Therefore, the 

proposed amendment does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

Removing existing Required Action A.1 

and adding surveillance of the containment 

sump level channels does not significantly 

decrease the margin of safety. The prescribed 

Action did not provide definitive information 

about instrument performance or operability. 

The new Surveillance Requirement proposed 

will provide a history of the operational 

performance of the containment sump level 

instrumentation that will better assist in the 

determination of instrument operability. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry 

Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry 

County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: May 23, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17150A302. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would add operability 

requirements, required actions, 

instrument settings, and surveillance 

requirements to the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) for the 4160 volt (V) 

emergency bus negative sequence 

voltage (open phase) protection 

function. Specifically, the proposed 

amendments would revise TS Table 

3.7–2, ‘‘Engineered Safeguards Action, 

Instrument Operating Conditions’’; 

Table 3.7–4, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature 

System Initiation Limits Instrument 

Setting’’; Table 4.1–1, ‘‘Minimum 

Frequencies for Check, Calibrations and 

Test of Instrument Channels’’; and add 

new TS Action 27 Table Notation to 

Tables 3.7–2 and 3.7–3, ‘‘Instrument 

Operating Conditions for Isolation 

Functions.’’ The negative sequence 

voltage (open phase) protection function 

provides detection and isolation of one 

or two open phases (i.e., an open phase 

condition) on a TS required offsite 

primary (preferred) power source and 

initiates transfer to the onsite emergency 

power source (i.e., the emergency diesel 

generators (EDGs)). 

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 change involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change adds operability 

requirements, required actions, instrument 

settings, and surveillance requirements for 

the negative sequence voltage (open phase) 

protection function associated with the 

4160V emergency buses. This system 

provides an additional level of undervoltage 

protection for Class 1E electrical equipment. 

The proposed change will promote reliability 

of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) 

protection circuitry in the performance of its 

design function of detecting and mitigating 

an open phase condition (OPC) on a required 

off-site primary power source and initiating 

transfer to the onsite emergency power 

source. 

The new negative sequence voltage (open 

phase) protection function will further 

ensure the normally operating Class 1E 

motors/equipment, which are powered from 

the Class 1E buses, are appropriately isolated 

from a primary off-site power source 

experiencing a consequential OPC and will 

not be damaged. The addition of the negative 

sequence voltage (open phase) protection 

function will continue to allow the existing 

undervoltage protection circuitry to function 

as originally designed (i.e., degraded and loss 

of voltage protection will remain in place and 

be unaffected by this change). The proposed 

change does not affect the probability of any 

accident resulting in a loss of voltage or 

degraded voltage condition on the Class 1E 

electrical buses and will enhance station 

response to mitigating the consequences of 

accidents previously evaluated as this change 

further ensures continued operation of Class 

1E equipment throughout accident scenarios. 

Specific models and analyses were 

performed and demonstrated that the 

proposed negative sequence voltage (open 

phase) protection function, with the specified 

operability requirements, required actions, 

instrument settings, and surveillance 

requirements, will ensure the Class 1E 

system will be isolated from the off-site 

power source should a consequential OPC 

occur. The Class 1E motors will be 

subsequently sequenced back onto the Class 

1E buses powered by the EDGs and will 

therefore not be damaged in the event of a 

consequential OPC under both accident and 

non-accident conditions. Therefore, the Class 

1E loads will be available to perform their 

design basis functions should a loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) occur concurrent 

with a loss-of-off-site power (LOOP) 

following an OPC. The loading sequence (i.e., 

timing) of Class 1E equipment back onto the 

ESF [engineered safety feature] bus, powered 

by the EDG, is within the existing degraded 

voltage time delay. 

The addition of the new negative sequence 

voltage (open phase) protection function will 

have no impact on accident initiators or 

precursors and does not alter the accident 

analysis assumptions. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the change create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

requirements for the availability of the 4160V 

emergency buses during accident conditions. 

The proposed change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis and 

is consistent with those assumptions. The 

addition of the negative sequence voltage 

(open phase) protection function TS 

enhances the ability of plant operators to 

identify and respond to an OPC in an off-site, 

primary power source, thereby ensuring the 

station electric distribution system will 

perform its intended safety function as 

designed. The proposed TS change will 

promote negative sequence voltage (open 

phase) protection function performance 

reliability in a manner similar to the existing 

loss of voltage and degraded voltage 

protective circuitry. 

The proposed change does not result in the 

creation of any new accident precursors; does 

not result in changes to any existing accident 

scenarios, and does not introduce any 

operational changes or mechanisms that 

would create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident. A failure mode 

and effects review was completed for 

postulated failure mechanisms of the new 

negative sequence voltage protection 

function and concluded that the addition of 

this protection function would not affect the 

existing loss of voltage and degraded voltage 

protection schemes; would not affect the 

number of occurrences of degraded voltage 

conditions that would cause the actuation of 

the existing Loss of Voltage, Degraded 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 47041 

Voltage or negative sequence voltage 

protection relays; would not affect the failure 

rate of the existing protection relays; and 

would not impact the assumptions in any 

existing accident scenario. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does this change involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change enhances the ability 

of the plant to identify and isolate (an) open 

phase(s) in an off-site, primary power source 

and transfer the power source for the 4160V 

emergency buses to the onsite emergency 

power system. The proposed change does not 

affect the dose analysis acceptance criteria, 

does not result in plant operation in a 

configuration outside the analyses or design 

basis, and does not adversely affect systems 

that respond to safely shutdown the plant 

and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 

condition. 

With the addition of the new negative 

sequence voltage (open phase) protection 

function, the capability of Class 1E 

equipment to perform its safety function will 

be further assured and the equipment will 

remain capable of mitigating the 

consequences of previously analyzed 

accidents while maintaining the existing 

margin to safety currently assumed in the 

accident analyses. 

Therefore, the proposed TS 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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

St., RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation, and/or Environmental 

Assessment, as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

December 15, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources— 

Operating,’’ to allow greater flexibility 

in performing Surveillance 

Requirements (SRs) by modifying Mode 

restriction notes in TS SRs 3.8.1.11, 

3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, 3.8.1.19, 3.8.4.8, and 

3.8.4.9. These proposed changes are 

consistent with Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–283– 

A, Revision 3, ‘‘Modify Section 3.8 

Mode Restriction Notes.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 8, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 292 (Unit 1) and 

288 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17178A234; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR 19101). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: January 

11, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.1.2, ‘‘Core 

Reactivity,’’ to revise the Completion 

Times of Required Action A.1 and A.2 

from 72 hours to 7 days. This proposed 

change is consistent with NRC-approved 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–142–A, Revision 

0, ‘‘Increase the Completion Time when 

the Core Reactivity Balance is Not 

Within Limit.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 8, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 297 (Unit 1) and 

276 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17207A284; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23618). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: January 

11, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ‘‘Containment 

Isolation Valves,’’ to add a Note to TS 

Limiting Condition for Operation 3.6.3 

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

allow isolation devices that are locked, 

sealed, or otherwise secured to be 

verified by use of administrative means. 

The changes are consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–269–A, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Allow administrative 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
47042 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 

means of position verification for locked 

or sealed valves.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 18, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 298 (Unit 1) and 

277 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17240A354; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23619). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: January 

11, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ‘‘Low 

Temperature Overpressure Protection 

(LTOP) System,’’ to increase the time 

allowed for swapping charging pumps 

to one hour. Additionally, an existing 

note in the Applicability section of TS 

3.4.12 was reworded and relocated to 

the Limiting Condition for Operation 

section of TS 3.4.12 as Note 2. These 

proposed changes were consistent with 

NRC-approved Technical Specifications 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–285– 

A, Revision 1, ‘‘Charging Pump Swap 

LTOP Allowance.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 25, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 299 (Unit 1) and 

278 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17244A102; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23620). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald 

C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: 

December 14, 2016, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 26, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the note regarding 

applicability of the limiting condition 

for operation for CNP Technical 

Specification 3.9.3, ‘‘Containment 

Penetrations.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 21, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 337 (Unit No. 1) 

and 319 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17214A550; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 28, 2017 (82 FR 

12133). The supplemental letter dated 

May 26, 2017, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, 

Iowa 

Date of amendment request: 

September 13, 2016, as supplemented 

by letters dated April 7, 2017, and June 

19, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment made changes to the DAEC 

Emergency Plan to revise the staffing 

and the augmentation times for certain 

emergency response organization 

positions. 

Date of issuance: September 21, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days. 

Amendment No.: 301. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17220A026; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–49: The amendment made 

changes to the DAEC Emergency Plan. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 22, 2016 (81 FR 

83877). The supplemental letters dated 

April 7, 2017, and June 19, 2017, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 

1 (Seabrook), Rockingham County, New 

Hampshire 

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant (St. Lucie), Unit Nos. 1 and 

2, St. Lucie County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: March 

30, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification requirements to operate 

ventilation systems with charcoal filters 

from 10 hours to 15 minutes in 

accordance with TSTF–522, Revision 0, 

‘‘Revise Ventilation System Surveillance 

Requirements to Operate for 10 hours 

per Month.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 11, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos: 156 (Seabrook); 240 

(St. Lucie, Unit No. 1) and 191 (St. 

Lucie, Unit No. 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17219A556; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

86, DPR–67, and NPF–16: Amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23627). 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 47043 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 

and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of amendment request: October 

25, 2016, as supplemented by letters 

dated June 21, 2017, and August 17, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Emergency 

Plan (E-Plan) for DCPP to adopt the 

Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI’s) 

revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) 

schemes described in NEI 99–01, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency 

Action Levels for Non-Passive 

Reactors,’’ November 2012. Revision 6 

of NEI 99–01 has been endorsed by the 

NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013. 

The currently approved E-Plan and 

associated EALs for DCPP are based on 

the guidance established in NEI 99–01, 

Revision 4 (NUMARC/NESP–007), 

‘‘Methodology for Development of 

Emergency Action Levels,’’ January 

2003, except for security-related EALs, 

which are based on the guidance 

established in NEI 99–01, Revision 5, 

‘‘Methodology for Development of 

Emergency Action Levels,’’ February 

2008. 

Date of issuance: September 25, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 365 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 231 (Unit 1) and 

233 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17212A379; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

80 and DPR–82: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 

87973). The supplemental letters dated 

June 21, 2017, and August 17, 2017, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: October 

11, 2016, as supplemented by letters 

dated May 15, 2017, and June 30, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments add new Action 

Conditions (A, B, and C) to Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.8.9 that address an 

inoperable 600 Volt AC load center (LC) 

1–2R. The amendments include 

appropriate Required Actions and 

associated Completion Times for an 

inoperable LC 1–2R. Appropriate 

corresponding changes were made to 

the remaining conditions to reflect these 

new conditions. 

Date of issuance: September 15, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and 

210 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17205A020; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 20, 2016 (81 FR 

92872). The supplemental letters dated 

May 15, 2017, and June 30, 2017, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 

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: March 

24, 2017, as supplemented by letter 

dated June 15, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification 3.7.9, ‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink 

(UHS),’’ to extend the completion time 

to restore one inoperable nuclear service 

cooling water (NSCW) basin transfer 

pump from 31 days to 46 days. 

Additionally, a new condition was 

added to address two inoperable NSCW 

basin transfer pumps. 

Date of issuance: September 19, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 192 (Unit 1) and 

175 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17213A133; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 9, 2017 (82 FR 21563). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: 

December 21, 2016, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 19, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) Surveillance 

Requirements (SRs) 3.6.11.2 and 

3.6.11.3 to modify the requirements for 

the total weight of stored ice, minimum 

weight of each ice basket, and average 

ice weight of sample baskets. The 

amendment also made conforming 

changes to TS Table SR 3.0.2–1. 

Date of issuance: September 14, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 14. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17215B037; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

96: Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR 

15388). The supplemental letter dated 

May 19, 2017, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
47044 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Notices 

1See 81 FR 89,995 (Dec. 13, 2016) and 82 FR 

34,995 (Jul. 27, 2017). 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of amendment request: October 

11, 2016, as supplemented by letters 

dated May 18, 2017, and June 2, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements to 

reference and allow use of the NRCapproved core reload methodologies 

described in Westinghouse topical 

reports WCAP–16045–P–A, Revision 0, 

‘‘Qualification of the Two-Dimensional 

Transport Code PARAGON’’; WCAP– 

16045–P–A, Addendum 1–A, Revision 

0, ‘‘Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear 

Data Methodology’’; and WCAP–10965– 

P–A, Addendum 2–A, Revision 0, 

‘‘Qualification of the New Pin Power 

Recovery Methodology,’’ for the 

Callaway Plant. 

Date of issuance: September 15, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 217. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17236A082; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–30: The amendment revised 

the Operating License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR 162). 

The supplemental letters dated May 18, 

2017, and June 2, 2017, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of October 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Anne T. Boland, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21607 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 52–040 and 52–041; NRC– 

2009–0337] 

Florida Power and Light Company; 

Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Combined license application; 

revised notice of hearing. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) will convene an 

evidentiary session to receive testimony 

and exhibits in the uncontested portion 

of this proceeding regarding the 

application of Florida Power and Light 

Company (FPL) for combined licenses 

(COLs) to construct and operate two 

additional units (Units 6 and 7) at the 

Turkey Point site in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. This mandatory 

hearing will concern safety and 

environmental matters relating to the 

requested COLs. 

DATES: The hearing will be held on 

December 12, 2017, beginning at 9:00 

a.m. Eastern Standard Time. For the 

schedule for submitting pre-filed 

documents and deadlines affecting 

Interested Government Participants, see 

Section V of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

52–040 and 52–041 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• NRC’s Electronic Hearing Docket: 

You may obtain publicly available 

documents related to this hearing online 

at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ 

regulatory/adjudicatory.html. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

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

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

a document is referenced. 

• 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Denise McGovern, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: 301–415–0681; email: 

Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

that, pursuant to Section 189a of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), it will convene an evidentiary 

session to receive testimony and 

exhibits in the uncontested portion of 

this proceeding regarding FPL’s June 30, 

2009, application for COLs under part 

52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), to construct and 

operate two additional units (Units 6 

and 7) at the Turkey Point site in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida (http://

www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/ 

turkey-point.html). The Commission 

had previously scheduled this hearing 

for February 9, 2017, and later, for 

October 5, 2017.1 This mandatory 

hearing will concern safety and 

environmental matters relating to the 

requested COLs, as more fully described 

below. Participants in the hearing are 

not to address any contested issues in 

their written filings or oral 

presentations. 

II. Evidentiary Uncontested Hearing 

The Commission will conduct this 

hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern 

Standard Time on December 12, 2017, at 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. The hearing on these 

issues will continue on subsequent 

days, if necessary. 

III. Presiding Officer 

The Commission is the presiding 

officer for this proceeding. 

IV. Matters To Be Considered 

The matter at issue in this proceeding 

is whether the review of the application 

by the Commission’s staff has been 

adequate to support the findings found 

in 10 CFR 52.97 and 10 CFR 51.107. 

Those findings that must be made for 

each COL are as follows: 

Issues Pursuant to the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as Amended 

The Commission will determine 

whether (1) the applicable standards 

and requirements of the Act and the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES