49234 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 

have the potential to challenge the 

ability of dry storage system structures, 

systems and components to fulfill their 

important-to-safety functions. The 

MAPS Report also describes generically 

acceptable aging management programs 

that an applicant may use to maintain 

the approved design basis of its storage 

system during the period of extended 

operation, or the period from 20 to 60 

years of storage. 

The staff will review and consider 

public comments received on draft 

NUREG–2214 as it finalizes the 

guidance. Comments are invited on any 

areas of the draft guidance. 

III. Public Meeting 

The NRC will conduct a public 

meeting for the purpose of describing 

the draft NUREG and answering 

questions from the public. The NRC will 

publish a notice of the location, time, 

and agenda of the meeting on the NRC’s 

public meeting Web site within at least 

10 calendar days before the meeting. 

Stakeholders should monitor the NRC’s 

public meeting Web site for information 

about the public meeting at: http://

www.nrc.gov/public-involve/publicmeetings/index.cfm. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day 

of October, 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michael C. Layton, 

Director, Division of Spent Fuel Management, 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22983 Filed 10–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0208] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses 

Involving No Significant Hazards 

Considerations 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Biweekly notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

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

Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

publishing this regular biweekly notice. 

The Act requires the Commission to 

publish notice of any amendments 

issued, or proposed to be issued, and 

grants the Commission the authority to 

issue and make immediately effective 

any amendment to an operating license 

or combined license, as applicable, 

upon a determination by the 

Commission that such amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, notwithstanding the 

pendency before the Commission of a 

request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued, from September 

26, 2017, to October 06, 2017. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

September 25, 2017. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

November 24, 2017. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by December 26, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0208. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office 

of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN–2– 

A13, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay 

Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

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

Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0208 facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject when contacting the NRC 

about the availability of information for 

this action. You may obtain 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–2017–0208. 

• 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– 

0208, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 49235 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. If 

the Commission takes action prior to the 

expiration of either the comment period 

or the notice period, it will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

issuance. If the Commission makes a 

final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

The Commission expects that the need 

to take this action will occur very 

infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s Web site at 

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

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

will rule on the petition and, if 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 

fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 

CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene. Parties have the opportunity 

to participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that party’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence, consistent with the NRC’s 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

Petitions must be filed no later than 

60 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. Petitions and motions for 

leave to file new or amended 

contentions that are filed after the 

deadline will not be entertained absent 

a determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

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

must be filed in accordance with the 

filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic 

Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this 

document. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to 

establish when the hearing is held. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

and make it immediately effective, 

notwithstanding the request for a 

hearing. Any hearing would take place 

after issuance of the amendment. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves a 

significant hazards consideration, then 

any hearing held would take place 

before the issuance of the amendment 

unless the Commission finds an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public, in which case it will issue 

an appropriate order or rule under 10 

CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

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

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

The petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions set 

forth in this section, except that under 

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

governmental body, or federally 

recognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof does not need to address the 

standing requirements in 10 CFR 

2.309(d) if the facility is located within 

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, 

local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may participate as a non-party 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who is not a party to the proceeding and 

is not affiliated with or represented by 

a party may, at the discretion of the 

presiding officer, be permitted to make 

a limited appearance pursuant to the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 

making a limited appearance may make 

an oral or written statement of his or her 

position on the issues but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to the 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the presiding officer. Details 

regarding the opportunity to make a 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49236 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 

limited appearance will be provided by 

the presiding officer if such sessions are 

scheduled. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing and petition for 

leave to intervene (petition), any motion 

or other document filed in the 

proceeding prior to the submission of a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities that 

request to participate under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 

with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Detailed guidance on 

making electronic submissions may be 

found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may not submit paper copies of their 

filings unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

submissions and access the E-Filing 

system for any proceeding in which it 

is participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a petition or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the hearing in this proceeding 

if the Secretary has not already 

established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. Once a participant 

has obtained a digital ID certificate and 

a docket has been created, the 

participant can then submit 

adjudicatory documents. Submissions 

must be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF 

submissions is available on the NRC’s 

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

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

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

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

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

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

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the document on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed so that they can 

obtain access to the documents via the 

E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

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

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

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

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted by: (1) First class 

mail addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

documents in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at https://

adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission 

or the presiding officer. If you do not 

have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate 

as described above, click cancel when 

the link requests certificates and you 

will be automatically directed to the 

NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where 

you will be able to access any publicly 

available documents in a particular 

hearing docket. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

personal phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. For example, in some 

instances, individuals provide home 

addresses in order to demonstrate 

proximity to a facility or site. With 

respect to copyrighted works, except for 

limited excerpts that serve the purpose 

of the adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: August 

14, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17226A207. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would add Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements for 

unavailable barriers by adding Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, 

consistent with NRC-approved 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 

Specifications Change Traveler TSTF– 

427, Revision 2, ‘‘Allowance for NonVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Oct 23, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24OCN1.SGM 24OCN1

asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 49237 

Technical Specification Barrier 

Degradation on Supported System 

Operability.’’ The Notice of Availability 

of this TS improvement and the model 

application were published in the 

Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 

FR 58444), as part of the Consolidated 

Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee affirmed the applicability of the 

model no significant hazards 

consideration determination, which is 

presented below: 

Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated. 

The proposed change allows a delay time 

for entering a supported system technical 

specification (TS) when the inoperability is 

due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is 

assessed and managed. The postulated 

initiating events which may require a 

functional barrier are limited to those with 

low frequencies of occurrence, and the 

overall TS system safety function would still 

be available for the majority of anticipated 

challenges. Therefore, the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased, if at all. The 

consequences of an accident while relying on 

the allowance provided by proposed LCO 

3.0.9 are no different than the consequences 

of an accident while relying on the TS 

required actions in effect without the 

allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. 

Therefore, the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

affected by this change. The addition of a 

requirement to assess and manage the risk 

introduced by this change will further 

minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Create the Possibility of a New or 

Different Kind of Accident from any 

Previously Evaluated. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed). 

Allowing delay times for entering supported 

system TS when inoperability is due solely 

to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed 

and managed, will not introduce new failure 

modes or effects and will not, in the absence 

of other unrelated failures, lead to an 

accident whose consequences exceed the 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 

assess and manage the risk introduced by this 

change will further minimize possible 

concerns. Thus, this change does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the 

Margin of Safety. 

The proposed change allows a delay time 

for entering a supported system TS when the 

inoperability is due solely to an unavailable 

barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The 

postulated initiating events which may 

require a functional barrier are limited to 

those with low frequencies of occurrence, 

and the overall TS system safety function 

would still be available for the majority of 

anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the 

proposed TS changes was assessed following 

the three-tiered approach recommended in 

RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding 

risk assessment was performed to justify the 

proposed TS changes. This application of 

LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee’s 

performance of a risk assessment and the 

management of plant risk. The net change to 

the margin of safety is insignificant as 

indicated by the anticipated low levels of 

associated risk (ICCDP [incremental 

conditional core damage probability] and 

ICLERP [incremental conditional large early 

release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of 

Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. 

Therefore, this change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the above 

analysis and, based on this review, it 

appears that the three standards of 10 

CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the 

NRC staff proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Anna 

Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 

Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 

20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: August 

14, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17226A210. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would add Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements for 

unavailable barriers by adding Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, 

consistent with NRC-approved 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 

Specifications Change Traveler TSTF– 

427, Revision 2, ‘‘Allowance for NonTechnical Specification Barrier 

Degradation on Supported System 

Operability.’’ The Notice of Availability 

of this TS improvement and the model 

application were published in the 

Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 

FR 58444), as part of the Consolidated 

Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee affirmed the applicability of the 

model no significant hazards 

consideration determination, which is 

presented below: 

Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated. 

The proposed change allows a delay time 

for entering a supported system technical 

specification (TS) when the inoperability is 

due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is 

assessed and managed. The postulated 

initiating events which may require a 

functional barrier are limited to those with 

low frequencies of occurrence, and the 

overall TS system safety function would still 

be available for the majority of anticipated 

challenges. Therefore, the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased, if at all. The 

consequences of an accident while relying on 

the allowance provided by proposed LCO 

3.0.9 are no different than the consequences 

of an accident while relying on the TS 

required actions in effect without the 

allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. 

Therefore, the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

affected by this change. The addition of a 

requirement to assess and manage the risk 

introduced by this change will further 

minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Create the Possibility of a New or 

Different Kind of Accident from any 

Previously Evaluated. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed). 

Allowing delay times for entering supported 

system TS when inoperability is due solely 

to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed 

and managed, will not introduce new failure 

modes or effects and will not, in the absence 

of other unrelated failures, lead to an 

accident whose consequences exceed the 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 

assess and manage the risk introduced by this 

change will further minimize possible 

concerns. Thus, this change does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does 

Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the 

Margin of Safety. 

The proposed change allows a delay time 

for entering a supported system TS when the 

inoperability is due solely to an unavailable 

barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The 

postulated initiating events which may 

require a functional barrier are limited to 

those with low frequencies of occurrence, 

and the overall TS system safety function 

would still be available for the majority of 

anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the 

proposed TS changes was assessed following 

the three-tiered approach recommended in 

RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding 

risk assessment was performed to justify the 

proposed TS changes. This application of 

LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee’s 

performance of a risk assessment and the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49238 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 

management of plant risk. The net change to 

the margin of safety is insignificant as 

indicated by the anticipated low levels of 

associated risk (ICCDP [incremental 

conditional core damage probability] and 

ICLERP [incremental conditional large early 

release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of 

Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. 

Therefore, this change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the above 

analysis and, based on this review, it 

appears that the three standards of 10 

CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the 

NRC staff proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Anna 

Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 

Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 

20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–219 and 72–15, Oyster 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 

Ocean County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: August 

29, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

available in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17241A065. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

site emergency plan (SEP) and 

emergency action level (EAL) scheme 

for the permanently defueled condition. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the emergency 

plan and EAL scheme do not impact the 

function of plant structures, systems, or 

components (SSCs). The proposed changes 

do not affect accident initiators or precursors, 

nor does it alter design assumptions. The 

proposed changes do not prevent the ability 

of the on-shift staff and emergency response 

organization (ERO) to perform their intended 

functions to mitigate the consequences of any 

accident or event that will be credible in the 

permanently defueled condition. 

The probability of occurrence of previously 

evaluated accidents is not increased, since 

most previously analyzed accidents can no 

longer occur and the probability of the few 

remaining credible accidents are unaffected 

by the proposed amendment. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes reduce the scope of 

the SEP and EAL scheme commensurate with 

the hazards associated with a permanently 

shutdown and defueled facility. The 

proposed changes do not involve installation 

of new equipment or modification of existing 

equipment, so that no new equipment failure 

modes are introduced. In addition, the 

proposed changes do not result in a change 

to the way that the equipment or facility is 

operated so that no new or different kinds of 

accident initiators are created. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is associated with 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

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

coolant system pressure boundary, and 

containment structure) to limit the level of 

radiation dose to the public. The proposed 

changes are associated with the SEP and EAL 

scheme and do not impact operation of the 

plant or its response to transients or 

accidents. The change does not affect the 

Technical Specifications. The proposed 

changes do not involve a change in the 

method of plant operation, and no accident 

analyses will be affected by the proposed 

changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria 

are not affected by the proposed changes. The 

Post Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) will 

continue to provide the necessary response 

staff with the appropriate guidance to protect 

the health and safety of the public. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: August 7, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17228A042. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

replace existing Technical Specification 

(TS) requirements related to ‘‘operations 

with a potential for draining the reactor 

vessel’’ (OPDRVs) with new 

requirements on reactor pressure vessel 

(RPV) water inventory control (WIC) to 

protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 

2.1.1.3 requires RPV water level to be 

greater than the top of active irradiated 

fuel. The proposed changes are based on 

TS Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF– 

542, Revision 2, ‘‘Reactor Pressure 

Vessel Water Inventory Control.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water 

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

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

previously evaluated and, therefore, 

replacing the existing TS controls to prevent 

or mitigate such an event with a new set of 

controls has no effect on any accident 

previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 

control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or 

the proposed RPV WIC controls are not 

mitigating actions assumed in any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change reduces the 

probability of an unexpected draining event 

(which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by imposing new requirements on 

the limiting time in which an unexpected 

draining event could result in the reactor 

vessel water level dropping to the top of the 

active fuel (TAF). These controls require 

cognizance of the plant configuration and 

control of configurations with unacceptably 

short drain times. These requirements reduce 

the probability of an unexpected draining 

event. The current TS requirements are only 

mitigating actions and impose no 

requirements that reduce the probability of 

an unexpected draining event. 

The proposed change reduces the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event (which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by requiring an Emergency Core 

Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 

operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The 

current TS requirements do not require any 

water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, 

to be operable in certain conditions in Mode 

5. The change in requirement from two ECCS 

subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 

4 and 5 does not significantly affect the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event because the proposed Actions ensure 

equipment is available within the limiting 

drain time that is as capable of mitigating the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 49239 

event as the current requirements. The 

proposed controls provide escalating 

compensatory measures to be established as 

calculated drain times decrease, such as 

verification of a second method of water 

injection and additional confirmations that 

containment and/or filtration would be 

available if needed. 

The proposed change reduces or eliminates 

some requirements that were determined to 

be unnecessary to manage the consequences 

of an unexpected draining event, such as 

automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem 

and control room ventilation. These changes 

do not affect the consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated since a 

draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a 

previously evaluated accident and the 

requirements are not needed to adequately 

respond to a draining event. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change 

will not alter the design function of the 

equipment involved. Under the proposed 

change, some systems that are currently 

required to be operable during OPDRVs 

would be required to be available within the 

limiting drain time or to be in service 

depending on the limiting drain time. Should 

those systems be unable to be placed into 

service, the consequences are no different 

than if those systems were unable to perform 

their function under the current TS 

requirements. 

The event of concern under the current 

requirements and the proposed change is an 

unexpected draining event. The proposed 

change does not create new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators that would cause a draining event 

or a new or different kind of accident not 

previously evaluated or included in the 

design and licensing bases. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC. The current 

requirements do not have a stated safety basis 

and no margin of safety is established in the 

licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 

requirements is to protect Safety Limit 

2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to 

determine the limiting time in which the 

RPV water inventory could drain to the top 

of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an 

unexpected draining event occur. Plant 

configurations that could result in lowering 

the RPV water level to the TAF within one 

hour are now prohibited. New escalating 

compensatory measures based on the limiting 

drain time replace the current controls. The 

proposed TS establish a safety margin by 

providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the 

Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 

public health and safety. While some less 

restrictive requirements are proposed for 

plant configurations with long calculated 

drain times, the overall effect of the change 

is to improve plant safety and to add safety 

margin. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. 

McClure, Nebraska Public Power 

District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, 

NE 68602–0499. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

30, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17242A279. 

Description of amendment request: 

The requested amendment proposes 

changes to combined license (COL) 

Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) 

Table 2.6.3–3 to revise Inspections, 

Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria 

(ITAAC) involving the Class 1E dc and 

uninterruptible power supply system 

(IDS). The proposed COL Appendix C 

(and plant-specific design control 

document (DCD) Tier 1) changes require 

additional changes to corresponding 

Tier 2 information in the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 

Chapter 8, ‘‘Electric Power.’’ Because 

this proposed change requires a 

departure from Tier 1 information in the 

Westinghouse Electric Company’s 

AP1000 DCD, the licensee also 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of the generic DCD Tier 1 

in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises COL 

Appendix C, plant-specific Tier 1, and 

UFSAR information concerning design 

commitments and ITAAC related to IDS 

functionality. The proposed change supports 

verification of the acceptability of the voltage 

transfer across applicable IDS circuits 

supplying power to Class 1E MOVs. 

This change does not affect the design 

details of the IDS, including the Class 1E 

battery banks and the MOVs that they 

support. The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 

2.6.3, Design Commitment 4.i); COL 

Appendix C Table 2.6.3-3, item 4.i); and 

UFSAR Subsection 8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that 

IDS can deliver adequate voltage to the motor 

terminals of Class 1E powered MOVs under 

design basis conditions. Therefore, the 

proposed changes meet the intent of the 

ITAAC and do not change the design or 

functionality of any safety-related structure, 

system or component (SSC). The proposed 

change does not affect the design functions 

of plant systems. The proposed change does 

not affect plant electrical systems, and does 

not affect the support, design, or operation of 

mechanical and fluid systems required to 

mitigate the consequences of an accident. 

There is no change to plant systems or the 

response of systems to postulated accident 

conditions. There is no change to the 

predicted radioactive releases due to 

postulated accident conditions. The plant 

response to previously evaluated accidents or 

external events is not affected, nor do the 

proposed changes create any new accident 

precursors. Therefore, the requested 

amendment does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises COL 

Appendix C, plant-specific Tier 1, and 

UFSAR information concerning design 

commitments and ITAAC related to IDS 

functionality. The proposed change supports 

verification of the acceptability of the voltage 

transfer across applicable IDS circuits 

supplying power to Class 1E MOVs. 

The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 2.6.3, 

Design Commitment 4.i); COL Appendix C 

Table 2.6.3-3, item 4.i) and UFSAR 

Subsection 8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that IDS can 

deliver adequate voltage to the motor 

terminals of Class 1E powered MOVs under 

design basis conditions. The proposed 

changes do not change the design or 

functionality of safety-related SSCs. The 

proposed change does not affect plant 

electrical systems, and does not affect the 

design function, support, design, or operation 

of mechanical and fluid systems. The 

proposed change does not result in a new 

failure mechanism or introduce any new 

accident precursors. No design function 

described in the UFSAR is affected by the 

proposed changes. Therefore, the requested 

amendment does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49240 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises COL 

Appendix C, plant-specific Tier 1, and 

UFSAR information concerning design 

commitments and ITAAC related to IDS 

functionality. The proposed change supports 

verification of the acceptability of the voltage 

transfer across applicable IDS circuits 

supplying power to Class 1E MOVs. 

The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 2.6.3, 

Design Commitment 4.i); COL Appendix C 

Table 2.6.3-3, item 4.i) and UFSAR 

Subsection 8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that under 

design basis conditions IDS can deliver 

adequate voltage to the motor terminals of 

Class 1E powered MOVs. Therefore, the 

proposed changes meet the intent of the 

ITAAC and do not reduce a margin of safety. 

No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 

limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 

the proposed changes, and no margin of 

safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

31, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17243A351. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment request proposes to 

depart from Tier 2 information in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(which includes the plant-specific 

Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 

information) and involves related 

changes to plant-specific Tier 1 (and 

associated Combined License (COL) 

Appendix C) information, and COL 

Appendix A Technical Specifications. 

Specifically, the requested amendment 

proposes changes to the plant-specific 

nuclear island non-radioactive 

ventilation system (VBS), the main 

control room emergency habitability 

system (VES), and post-accident 

operator dose analyses. These changes 

are proposed to maintain compliance 

with General Design Criterion (GDC)– 

19, which requires that main control 

room personnel dose does not exceed 5 

roentgen equivalent man total effective 

dose equivalent for the duration of a 

design basis accident. Because this 

proposed change requires a departure 

from Tier 1 information in the 

Westinghouse Electric Company’s 

AP1000 DCD, the licensee also 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 

in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The AP1000 accident analyses describe 

various design basis accidents to demonstrate 

compliance with the acceptance criteria for 

these events. The acceptance criteria for the 

various accidents are based on meeting the 

relevant regulations, general design criteria, 

the Standard Review Plan, and are a function 

of the anticipated frequency of occurrence of 

the event and potential radiological 

consequences to the public. As such, each 

design-basis event is categorized accordingly 

based on these considerations. The proposed 

changes do not affect the accident frequency 

designations as previously evaluated. 

Instead, the changes ensure that the control 

room shielding design will meet the operator 

habitability requirements under such 

accidents. Further, the proposed changes do 

not involve any components that could 

initiate an event by means of component or 

system failure. The changes do not alter 

design features available during normal 

operation or anticipated operational 

occurrences. The changes do not adversely 

impact accident source term parameters or 

affect any release paths used in the safety 

analyses, which could increase radiological 

dose consequences. The proposed changes 

would not increase the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated in the plantspecific Design Control Document (DCD). 

Offsite doses are not adversely affected by the 

changes proposed. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes would not introduce 

a new failure mode, fault, or sequence of 

events that could result in a radioactive 

material release. The proposed changes do 

not alter the design, configuration, or method 

of operation of the plant beyond standard 

functional capabilities of the equipment. 

Instead, the changes modify the manner in 

which the radiological consequences of the 

existing design basis accidents are evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Safety margins are applied at many levels 

to the design and licensing basis functions 

and to the controlling values of parameters to 

account for various uncertainties and to 

avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing 

limits. The proposed changes ultimately 

result in dose values that meet 10 CFR part 

50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 

(GDC)–19. The proposed changes do not 

adversely affect any safety-related equipment 

or other design functions, design code 

compliance, design analysis, safety analysis 

input or result, or design/safety margin. No 

safety analysis or design basis acceptance 

limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 

the proposed changes. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

September 22, 2017. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17265A822. 

Description of amendment request: 

The requested amendment proposes 

changes to combined license Appendix 

A, Technical Specifications (TS). The 

proposed changes add new TS 3.1.10, 

Rod Withdrawal Test Exception— 

MODE 5, and modify TS Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.7, to 

allow rod movement and rod drop time 

testing under cold conditions (MODE 5). 

Additionally, the LCO Applicability of 

TS 3.4.8, Minimum Reactor Coolant 

System (RCS) Flow, is revised to reflect 

its safety analysis basis. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 49241 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

There are no design changes associated 

with the proposed amendment. All design, 

material, and construction standards that 

were applicable prior to this amendment 

request will continue to be applicable. 

The Plant Control System (PLS), Reactor 

Coolant System (RCS), Chemical and Volume 

Control System (CVS), and Protection and 

Safety Monitoring System (PMS) will 

continue to function in a manner consistent 

with the existing plant design basis. There 

will be no changes to the PLS, RCS, CVS, or 

PMS operating limits. 

The proposed amendment will not affect 

accident initiators or precursors or alter the 

design, conditions, and configuration of the 

facility, or the manner in which the plant is 

operated and maintained, with respect to 

such initiators or precursors. 

The proposed amendment will preclude 

reactor core criticality during the use of new 

TS 3.1.10. The proposed amendment will not 

alter the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) to perform their specified 

safety functions. 

Accident analysis acceptance criteria will 

continue to be met with the proposed 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

affect the source term, containment isolation, 

or radiological release assumptions used in 

evaluating the radiological consequences of 

any accident previously evaluated. The 

proposed changes will not alter any 

assumptions or change any mitigation actions 

in the radiological consequence evaluations 

in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR). 

The applicable radiological dose 

acceptance criteria will continue to be met. 

The proposed amendment adds a new test 

exception TS 3.1.10, revises TS LCO 3.0.7 to 

reference the new TS 3.1.10, and modifies 

the LCO Applicability of TS 3.4.8 to be 

consistent with the purpose of that TS as an 

initial condition of the inadvertent boron 

dilution analyses, but does not physically 

alter any safety-related systems. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

With respect to any new or different kind 

of accident, there are no proposed design 

changes nor are there any changes in the 

method by which any safety-related plant 

SSC performs its specified safety function. 

The proposed change will not affect the 

normal method of plant operation or change 

any operating parameters. No equipment 

performance requirements will be affected. 

The proposed change will not alter any 

assumptions made in the safety analyses. 

The proposed amendment adds a new test 

exception TS 3.1.10, revises TS LCO 3.0.7 to 

reference the new TS 3.1.10, and modifies 

the LCO Applicability of TS 3.4.8 to be 

consistent with the purpose of that TS as an 

initial condition of the inadvertent boron 

dilution analyses. The proposed change does 

not involve a physical modification of the 

plant. 

No new accident scenarios, transient 

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures will be introduced as a result 

of this amendment. There will be no adverse 

effect or challenges imposed on any safetyrelated system as a result of this amendment. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

There will be no effect on those plant 

systems necessary to effect the 

accomplishment of protection functions. No 

instrument setpoints or system response 

times are affected. None of the acceptance 

criteria for any accident analysis will be 

changed. The proposed amendment will have 

no impact on the radiological consequences 

of a design basis accident. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

September 22, 2017. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17265A787. 

Description of amendment request: 

The requested amendment proposes to 

revise Tier 2* information in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR), specifically to modify the 

licensing requirements for the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) Class 1 Piping component 

analysis from limited to design by rule 

evaluation as described in ASME 

Section III, NB–3600 to include the 

ability to perform design by analysis 

evaluations, as described in ASME 

Section III, NB–3200. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented below 

with Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff’s edits in square brackets: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change describes how the 

ASME Class 1 piping components are 

evaluated for stress and functional capability. 

The ASME Class 1 piping components are 

evaluated against ASME Section III to 

demonstrate that the components meet the 

allowables required by the ASME Code. The 

ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. 

The change allows the ASME Class 1 piping 

components to be evaluated by not only 

ASME Section III, NB–3600, but also, in 

situations where the simplified analysis 

results do not satisfy the requirements, 

ability is added for an evaluation using the 

more detailed method of ASME Section III, 

NB–3200. This is performed in accordance 

with ASME Section III, NB–3630(c). This 

method will continue to demonstrate that the 

piping components meet acceptance criteria 

and will perform as required in the design. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

operation of any systems or equipment that 

may initiate a new or different kind of 

accident, or alter an [structure, system, and 

component (SSC)] such that a new accident 

initiator or initiating sequence of events is 

created. 

The change has no adverse effect on the 

design function of the ASME Class 1 piping 

components or the SSCs to which the piping 

is connected. The probabilities of accidents 

evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. 

The change does not impact the support, 

design, or operation of mechanical and fluid 

systems. The change does not impact the 

support, design, or operation of any safetyrelated structures. There is no change to 

plant systems or response of systems to 

postulated accident conditions. There is no 

change to the predicted radioactive releases 

due to normal operation or postulated 

accident conditions. The plant response to 

previously evaluated accidents or external 

events is not adversely affected, nor does the 

proposed change create any new accident 

precursors. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change describes how the 

ASME Class 1 piping components are 

evaluated for stress and functional capability. 

The ASME Class 1 piping components are 

evaluated against ASME Section III to 

demonstrate that the components meet the 

allowables required by the ASME Code. The 

ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. 

The change allows the ASME Class 1 piping 

components to be evaluated by not only 

ASME Section III, NB–3600, but also, in 

situations where the simplified analysis 

results do not satisfy the requirements, 

ability is added for an evaluation using the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49242 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 

more detailed method of ASME Section III, 

NB–3200. This is performed in accordance 

with ASME Section III, NB–3630(c). This 

method will continue to demonstrate that the 

piping components meet acceptance criteria 

and will perform as required in the design. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect the design function of the ASME Class 

1 piping components, the structures and 

systems in which the piping components are 

used, or any other SSC design functions or 

methods of operation in a manner that results 

in a new failure mode, malfunction, or 

sequence of events that affect safety-related 

or non-safety related equipment. This activity 

does not allow for a new fission product 

release path, result in a new fission product 

barrier failure mode, or create a new 

sequence of events that result in significant 

fuel cladding failures. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change describes how the 

ASME Class 1 piping components are 

evaluated for stress and functional capability. 

The ASME Class 1 piping components are 

evaluated against ASME Section III to 

demonstrate that the components meet the 

allowables required by the ASME Code. The 

ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. 

The change allows the ASME Class 1 piping 

components to be evaluated by not only 

ASME Section III, NB–3600, but also, in 

situations where the simplified analysis 

results do not satisfy the requirements, 

ability is added for an evaluation using the 

more detailed method of ASME Section III, 

NB–3200. This is performed in accordance 

with ASME Section III, NB–3630(c). This 

method will continue to demonstrate that the 

piping components meet acceptance criteria 

and will perform as required in the design. 

Because no safety analysis or design basis 

acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 

exceeded by this change, no significant 

margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) 

Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

September 8, 2017. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17251A458. 

Description of amendment request: 

The requested amendment requires 

changes to the Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of 

departures from the plant-specific 

Design Control Document Tier 2 

information and involves changes to the 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 combined license 

(COL) Appendix A, Technical 

Specifications. Specifically, the 

proposed amendment would revise the 

licensing basis information for the 

design of the protection and safety 

monitoring system (PMS) automatic 

reactor trips and the crediting of PMS 

automatic reactor trips necessary to 

prevent exceeding fuel design limits 

including the power range high neutron 

flux (high setpoint), the power range 

high positive flux rate trip, the 

overpower DT trip, and the 

overtemperature DT trip. Also, includes 

changes to the COL Appendix A 

Technical Specifications for 

maintaining moderator temperature 

coefficient and maintaining power 

distributions within the required 

absolute power generation limits. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect the operation of any systems or 

equipment that initiate an analyzed accident 

or alter any structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) accident initiator or 

initiating sequence of events. The proposed 

changes do not adversely affect the ability of 

the PMS automatic reactor trips to perform 

the required safety function to trip the reactor 

when necessary to protect fuel design limits, 

and do not adversely affect the probability of 

inadvertent operation or failure of the PMS 

automatic reactor trips. The proposed 

changes to the methods for maintaining 

moderator temperature coefficient within the 

required reactivity control limits and 

maintaining power generation within the 

required power distribution limits do not 

result in any increase in probability of an 

analyzed accident occurring, and prevent 

power oscillations and maintain the initial 

conditions and operating limits required by 

the accident analysis, and the analyses of 

normal operation and anticipated operational 

occurrences, so that fuel design limits are not 

exceeded for events resulting in positive 

reactivity insertion and reactivity feedback 

effects. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

operation of any systems or equipment that 

may initiate a new or different kind of 

accident, or alter any SSC such that a new 

accident initiator or initiating sequence of 

events is created. The proposed changes do 

not adversely affect the ability of the PMS 

automatic reactor trips to perform the 

required safety function to trip the reactor 

when necessary to protect fuel design limits, 

and do not adversely affect the probability of 

inadvertent operation or failure of the PMS 

automatic reactor trips. The proposed 

changes to the methods for maintaining 

moderator temperature coefficient within the 

required reactivity control limits and 

maintaining power generation within the 

required power distribution limits do not 

result in the possibility of an accident 

occurring, and prevent power oscillations 

and maintain the initial conditions and 

operating limits required by the accident 

analysis, and the analyses of normal 

operation and anticipated operational 

occurrences, so that fuel design limits are not 

exceeded for events resulting in positive 

reactivity insertion and reactivity feedback 

effects. 

These proposed changes do not adversely 

affect any other SSC design functions or 

methods of operation in a manner that results 

in a new failure mode, malfunction, or 

sequence of events that affect safety-related 

or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, 

this activity does not allow for a new fission 

product release path, result in a new fission 

product barrier failure mode, or create a new 

sequence of events that results in significant 

fuel cladding failures. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes maintain existing 

safety margins. The proposed changes to the 

PMS reactor trip system instrumentation, 

reactivity control systems, and power 

distribution limits maintain existing safety 

margin through continued application of the 

existing requirements of the UFSAR. The 

proposed changes maintain the initial 

conditions and operating limits required by 

the accident analysis, and the analyses of 

normal operation and anticipated operational 

occurrences, so that the existing fuel design 

limits specified in the UFSAR are not 

exceeded for events resulting in positive 

reactivity insertion and reactivity feedback 

effects. Therefore, the proposed changes 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 49243 

satisfy the same safety functions in 

accordance with the same requirements as 

stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not 

adversely affect any design code, function, 

design analysis, safety analysis input or 

result, or design/safety margin. No safety 

analysis or design basis acceptance limit/ 

criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 

proposed changes, and no margin of safety is 

reduced. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

31, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17243A444. 

Description of amendment request: 

The requested amendment proposes to 

depart from the approved AP1000 

Design Control Document (DCD) by 

proposing changes to various plantspecific Tier 1 (and Combined License 

(COL) Appendix C) information and 

Tier 2 material contained within the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR) to modify design details of the 

containment recirculation cooling 

system (VCS) and the radiologically 

controlled area ventilation system 

(VAS). Specifically, if approved, the 

changes to the VCS address changes in 

total required design air flow rates and 

total design cooling and heating 

requirements as a result of the final 

design of the VCS, and the changes to 

the VAS add a fourth differential 

pressure instrument and alarm 

functions and reduce the fuel handling 

area ventilation subsystem design flow 

rate and would address the capability of 

the supply and exhaust duct isolation 

damper to close under specific 

conditions. Pursuant to the provisions 

of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption 

from elements of the design as certified 

in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, 

design certification rule is also 

requested for the plant-specific DCD 

Tier 1 departures. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The design functions of the containment 

recirculation cooling system (VCS) include 

control of the air temperature and reduction 

of humidity in the containment to provide a 

suitable environment for equipment 

operability during normal power operation, 

and for personnel accessibility and 

equipment operability during refueling and 

shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS 

address changes in total required design air 

flow rates and total design cooling and 

heating requirements, thereby maintaining 

these design functions. 

The design functions of the radiologically 

controlled area ventilation system (VAS) 

include prevention of the unmonitored 

release of airborne radioactivity to the 

atmosphere or adjacent plant areas, by 

maintaining a negative pressure differential 

in radiologically controlled areas of the 

auxiliary building, maintaining occupied 

areas and access and equipment areas within 

their design temperature range, and 

providing outside air for plant personnel. 

The proposed changes for the VAS enable 

pressure differential monitoring and control 

for an area of the auxiliary building that is 

physically remote and separate from the 

currently monitored and controlled areas, 

and provide VAS supply air flow rate and 

total ventilation flow through the auxiliary 

building fuel handling area required to 

maintain occupied areas and access and 

equipment areas within their design 

temperature range and to provide outside air 

for plant personnel, maintaining these design 

functions. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

operation of any systems or equipment that 

initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 

structure, system, or component (SSC) 

accident initiator or initiating sequence of 

events. There are no inadvertent operations 

or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as 

accident initiators or part of an initiating 

sequence of events for an accident previously 

evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the 

accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR 

are not affected. 

These proposed changes to the VCS and 

VAS design as described in the current 

licensing basis do not have an adverse effect 

on any of the design functions of the systems. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

support, design, or operation of mechanical 

and fluid systems required to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident. There is no 

change to plant systems or the response of 

systems to postulated accident conditions. 

There is no change to the predicted 

radioactive releases due to postulated 

accident conditions. The plant response to 

previously evaluated accidents or external 

events is not adversely affected, nor do the 

proposed changes create any new accident 

precursors. The proposed changes do not 

affect the prevention and mitigation of other 

abnormal events, e.g., anticipated operational 

occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine 

missiles, or their safety or design analyses. 

Therefore, the consequences of the accidents 

evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

operation of any systems or equipment that 

may initiate a new or different kind of 

accident, or alter any SSC such that a new 

accident initiator or initiating sequence of 

events is created. The proposed changes 

revise the VCS and VAS design as described 

in the current licensing basis to enable the 

systems to perform required design 

functions. These proposed changes do not 

adversely affect any other SSC design 

functions or methods of operation in a 

manner that results in a new failure mode, 

malfunction, or sequence of events that affect 

safety-related or nonsafety-related 

equipment. Therefore, this activity does not 

allow for a new fission product release path, 

result in a new fission product barrier failure 

mode, or create a new sequence of events 

resulting in significant fuel cladding failures. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes maintain existing 

safety margins. The proposed changes to the 

VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related 

design function. These changes do not 

adversely affect any design code, function, 

design analysis, safety analysis input or 

result, or design/safety margin. No safety 

analysis or design basis acceptance limit/ 

criterion is challenged by the proposed 

changes, and no margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49244 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

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

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, 

and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of amendment request: June 14, 

2017. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments modified the 

completion date for implementation of 

Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security Plan 

(CSP). The proposed amendments 

would extend the CSP Milestone 8 

completion date from September 30, 

2017, to December 31, 2017. 

Date of issuance: September 27, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

September 30, 2017. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–204, Unit 

2–204, and Unit 3–204. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17254A499; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The 

amendments revised the Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 18, 2017 (82 FR 32878). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment requests: 

December 15, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.9.5, ‘‘Residual Heat 

Removal (RHR) and Coolant 

Circulation—Low Water Level,’’ to add 

Note 1 to the Limiting Condition for 

Operation (LCO) Section of TS 3.9.5 to 

allow the securing of the operating train 

of RHR for up to 15 minutes to support 

switching operating trains. The 

allowance is restricted to three 

conditions: (a) The core outlet 

temperature is maintained greater than 

10 degrees Fahrenheit below saturation 

temperature; (b) no operations are 

permitted that would cause an 

introduction of coolant into the Reactor 

Coolant System (RCS) with boron 

concentration less than that required to 

meet the minimum required boron 

concentration of LCO 3.9.1; and (c) no 

draining operations to further reduce 

RCS water volume are permitted. 

Additionally, the amendments would 

modify the LCO Section of TS 3.9.5 to 

add Note 2 which would allow one 

required RHR loop to be inoperable for 

up to two hours for surveillance testing, 

provided that the other RHR loop is 

operable and in operation. These 

proposed changes are consistent with 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Travelers TSTF–349–A, 

Revision 1, ‘‘Add Note to LCO 3.9.5 

Allowing Shutdown Cooling Loops 

Removal from Operation’’, TSTF–361– 

A, Revision 2, ‘‘Allow standby 

[Shutdown Cooling] SDC/RHR/[Decay 

Heat Removal] DHR loop to be 

inoperable to support testing,’’ and 

TSTF–438–A, Revision 0, ‘‘Clarify 

Exception Notes to be Consistent with 

the Requirement Being Excepted.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 29, 2017. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of its date 

of issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1) and 

289 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17249A135; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments 

revised the renewed facility operating 

licenses and technical specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

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

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–261, H.B. Robinson Steam Electric 

Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, 

South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

September 14, 2016. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment authorized the adoption of 

a revised alternative source term in the 

updated final safety analysis report to 

support the transition from an 18-month 

to a 24-month fuel cycle. 

Date of issuance: September 29, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 255. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17205A233; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–23: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 22, 2016 (81 FR 

83875). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 31092). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 49245 

Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 

(GGNS), Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 29, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

proposed amendment made an 

administrative change to the licensee 

name. Effective November 10, 2016, 

South Mississippi Electric Power 

Association changed its company name 

from ‘‘South Mississippi Electric Power 

Association’’ to ‘‘Cooperative Energy, a 

Mississippi electric cooperative.’’ The 

corporate name was changed for 

commercial reasons. The changes 

proposed herein to the GGNS operating 

license solely reflects the changed 

licensee name. This name change is 

purely administrative in nature. This 

request does not involve a transfer of 

control or of an interest in the license. 

Date of issuance: October 4, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No: 213. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17240A232; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–29: The amendment revised 

the Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23624). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, DeWitt 

County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: January 

25, 2016, as supplemented by letters 

dated. March 31, 2016, March 2, and 

June 1, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the technical 

specification (TS) associated with the 

primary containment leakage rate 

testing program. Specifically, the 

amendment extend the frequencies for 

performance of the Type A containment 

integrated leakage rate test and the Type 

C containment isolation valve leakage 

rate test, which are required by 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix J, ‘‘Primary Reactor 

Containment Leakage Testing for WaterCooled Power Reactors.’’ The 

amendment also deletes the requirement 

in TS 5.5.13 to perform Type A testing 

by 2008. 

Date of issuance: September 26, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No(s): 214. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17237A010; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

62: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28895). 

The supplemental letters dated March 2, 

2017, and June 1, 2017, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: 

December 8, 2016. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the implementation 

date of Milestone 8 of the Cyber 

Security Plan from December 15, 2017, 

to June 15, 2019. 

Date of issuance: September 29, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 316. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17235A540; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–59: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR 

8869). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island 

Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: March 

22, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment (1) updated Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.4.2 for the current 

number of fuel assemblies and number 

of reactor cores that are stored in Spent 

Fuel Pool A; (2) revised TS 6.1.2 

requirements for the Chief Nuclear 

Officer to eliminate the annual 

management directive to all unit 

personnel responsible for the control 

room command function; and (3) 

deleted the TS 6.2.2.2.d footnote that 

references Control Room Supervisors 

who do not possess a Senior Reactor 

Operator NRC License. 

Date of issuance: October 5, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 293. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17233A138; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–50: Amendment revised the 

Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR 35840). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

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

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

December 22, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments updated the St. Lucie 

Plant, Unit No. 1, and St. Lucie Plant, 

Unit No. 2, Technical Specifications 

(TSs) to relocate the Component Cyclic 

or Transient Limits Program 

requirements to the Administrative 

Controls sections of the TSs. The 

amendments also deleted the 

Component Cyclic or Transient Limits 

TS tables, which detail the allowable 

transient limits, and will place these 

tables in licensee-controlled documents. 

Date of issuance: October 5, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
49246 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 

Amendment Nos.: 241 and 192. A 

publicly available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17235A565; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 28, 2017 (82 FR 

12133). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket 

Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

December 21, 2016, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 18, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications for the Engineered Safety 

Features Actuation System 

instrumentation. The amendments 

modified the completion times for 

required actions for inoperable 

instrumentation channels for auxiliary 

feedwater actuation on bus stripping 

and on trip of all main feedwater pump 

breakers. 

Date of issuance: September 28, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos: 276 and 271. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17209A319. 

Documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 

13666). The supplemental letter dated 

May 18, 2017, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated September 28, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

South Carolina Public Service 

Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 

(VCSNS) Fairfield County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

December 16, 2015, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 7, 2016, February 6, 

2017, June 22, 2017, July 6, 2017, and 

September 27, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment revises Technical 

Specification (TS) 3⁄4.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip 

System Instrumentation,’’ and TS 3⁄4.3.2, 

‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 

System Instrumentation,’’ to implement 

the Allowed Outage Time, Bypass Test 

Time, and Surveillance Frequency 

changes approved by the NRC in 

WCAP–15376–P–A, Rev. 1, ‘‘RiskInformed Assessment of the Reactor 

Trip System (RTS) and Engineered 

Safety Features Actuation System 

(ESFAS) Surveillance Test Intervals and 

Reactor Trip Breaker Test and 

Completion Times.’’ 

Date of issuance: October 4, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 209. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17206A412, 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–12: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21601). 

The supplemental letters dated March 7, 

2016, February 6, 2017, June 22, 2017, 

July 6, 2017, and September 27, 2017, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), 

Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 

Alabama 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), 

Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

November 21, 2016. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the requirements on 

control and shutdown rods, and rod and 

bank position indication in Technical 

Specifications (TS) 3.1.4, ‘‘Rod Group 

Alignment Limits,’’ TS 3.1.5, 

‘‘Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits,’’ TS 

3.1.6, ‘‘Control Bank Insertion Limits,’’ 

and TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod Position Indication’’ 

consistent with Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) approved Technical 

Specification Task Force Traveler 

(TSTF)-547, Revision 1, ‘‘Clarification of 

Rod Position Requirements’’ dated 

March 4, 2016. 

Date of issuance: October 2, 2017. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Farley Unit 1—214, 

Farley Unit 2—211, VEGP Unit 1—193, 

VEGP Unit 2—176. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17214A546; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–2, NPF–8, NPF–68, and NPF– 

81: The amendments revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating Licenses 

and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR 

8872). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3 (BFN), Limestone County, 

Alabama 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts Bar 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (WBN), 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: April 5, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised technical 

specification surveillance requirements 

(SRs) that required operating ventilation 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Notices 49247 

systems with charcoal filters for 10 

hours each month. Specifically, BFN 

SRs 3.6.4.3.1 and 3.7.3.1, and WBN SRs 

3.6.9.1 and 3.7.12.1 are revised, 

consistent with NRC-approved 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–522, Revision 0, 

‘‘Revise Ventilation System Surveillance 

Requirements to Operate for 10 hours 

per Month,’’ to require operation of the 

systems for 15 continuous minutes 

every 31 days. 

Date of issuance: October 2, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 300 (Unit 1), 324 

(Unit 2), and 284 (Unit 3) for BFN; and 

115 (Unit 1) and 15 (Unit 2) for WBN. 

A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17215A243; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluations enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

(RFOL) Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and 

DPR–68 for BFN; and Facility Operating 

License (FOL) Nos. NPF–90 and NPF–96 

for WBN: Amendments revised the 

RFOLs and FOLs and technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26139). 

The Commission’s related evaluations 

of the amendments are contained in 

Safety Evaluations dated October 2, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of October 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Eric J. Benner, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22680 Filed 10–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0001] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

DATE: Weeks of October 23, 30, 

November 6, 13, 20, 27, 2017. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of October 23, 2017 

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 

10:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic 

Overview of the Operating Reactors 

Business Line (Public) (Contact: 

Trent Wertz: 301–415–1568). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. 

Week of October 30, 2017—Tentative 

Monday, October 30, 2017 

4:00 p.m. Briefing on Export Licensing 

(Closed—Ex. 1 & 9) 

Week of November 6, 2017—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of November 6, 2017. 

Week of November 13, 2017—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of November 13, 2017. 

Week of November 20, 2017—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of November 20, 2017. 

Week of November 27, 2017—Tentative 

Tuesday, November 28, 2017 

10:00 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1) 

Thursday, November 30, 2017 

10:00 a.m. Briefing on Equal 

Employment Opportunity, 

Affirmative Employment, and Small 

Business (Public); (Contact: 

Larniece McKoy Moore: 301–415– 

1942). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. 

* * * * * 

The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. For more information or to verify 

the status of meetings, contact Denise 

McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email 

at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

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

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g., 

braille, large print), please notify 

Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability 

Program Manager, at 301–287–0739, by 

videophone at 240–428–3217, or by 

email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@

nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodation will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

Members of the public may request to 

receive this information electronically. 

If you would like to be added to the 

distribution, please contact the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– 

415–1969), or email 

Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or 

Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov. 

Dated: October 19, 2017. 

Denise L. McGovern, 

Policy Coordinator Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23096 Filed 10–20–17; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2018–13 and CP2018–26; 

CP2018–27] 

New Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing for the 

Commission’s consideration concerning 

negotiated service agreements. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: October 30, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

The Commission gives notice that the 

Postal Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to negotiated service agreement(s). The 

request(s) may propose the addition or 

removal of a negotiated service 

agreement from the market dominant or 

the competitive product list, or the 

modification of an existing product 

currently appearing on the market 

dominant or the competitive product 

list. 

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, the title of each Postal 

Service request, the request’s acceptance 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES