51646 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: DOL–BLS. 

Title of Collection: Report on Current 

Employment Statistics. 

OMB Control Number: 1220–0011. 

Affected Public: Private Sector— 

businesses or other for-profits and notfor-profit institutions; State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments; and Federal 

Government. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 297,683. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Responses: 3,572,196. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

538,240 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $0. 

Dated: October 31, 2017. 

Michel Smyth, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24176 Filed 11–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration and Management; 

Request for Comments on the Draft 

DOL FY 2018–2022 Strategic Plan 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor. 

ACTION: Request for comments on the 

draft DOL FY 2018–2022 strategic plan. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is seeking public comment on its 

Draft FY 2018–2022 Strategic Plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 7, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments can be provided 

by email to dolstratplan@dol.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Richardson, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Administration 

and Management, Performance 

Management Center, (202) 693–7122. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of Labor’s Draft FY 2018– 

2022 Strategic Plan is provided to 

satisfy a requirement of the Government 

Performance and Results Modernization 

Act (GPRMA) that agency stakeholders 

have an opportunity to comment. This 

plan presents the Secretary’s vision, the 

Department’s mission, and a description 

of how component agencies will achieve 

supporting goals and strategic objectives 

in the next four years. We look forward 

to receiving your comments. The text of 

the draft strategic plan is available in 

pdf on the Department of Labor Web site 

at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/osec/ 

stratplan. 

Dated: November 1, 2017. 

Bryan Slater, 

Assistant Secretary for Administration and 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24212 Filed 11–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–04–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0212] 

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 October 7 

to October 23, 2017. The last biweekly 

notice was published on October 24, 

2017. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

December 7, 2017. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by January 8, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0212. 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: 

Beverly A. Clayton, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

3475, email: beverly.clayton@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0212, 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–2017–0212. 

• 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– 

0212, 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 51647 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period 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. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
51648 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

The petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions set 

forth in this section, except that under 

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

governmental body, or federally 

recognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof does not need to address the 

standing requirements in 10 CFR 

2.309(d) if the facility is located within 

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, 

local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may participate as a non-party 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who is not a party to the proceeding and 

is not affiliated with or represented by 

a party may, at the discretion of the 

presiding officer, be permitted to make 

a limited appearance pursuant to the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 

making a limited appearance may make 

an oral or written statement of his or her 

position on the issues but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to the 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the presiding officer. Details 

regarding the opportunity to make a 

limited appearance will be provided by 

the presiding officer if such sessions are 

scheduled. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing and petition for 

leave to intervene (petition), any motion 

or other document filed in the 

proceeding prior to the submission of a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities that 

request to participate under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 

with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Detailed guidance on 

making electronic submissions may be 

found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 51649 

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. 

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– 

341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: August 

31, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17243A422. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

replace existing technical specifications 

(TS) requirements related to ‘‘operations 

with a potential for draining the reactor 

vessel’’ (OPDRVs) with new 

requirements on reactor pressure vessel 

water inventory control (RPV WIC) to 

protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3, which 

requires reactor vessel water level to be 

greater than the top of active irradiated 

fuel. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water 

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

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

previously evaluated and, therefore, 

replacing the existing TS controls to prevent 

or mitigate such an event with a new set of 

controls has no effect on any accident 

previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 

control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or 

the proposed RPV WIC controls are not 

mitigating actions assumed in any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change reduces the 

probability of an unexpected draining event 

(which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by imposing new requirements on 

the limiting time in which an unexpected 

draining event could result in the reactor 

vessel water level dropping to the top of the 

active fuel (TAF). These controls require 

cognizance of the plant configuration and 

control of configurations with unacceptably 

short drain times. These requirements reduce 

the probability of an unexpected draining 

event. The current TS requirements are only 

mitigating actions and impose no 

requirements that reduce the probability of 

an unexpected draining event. 

The proposed change reduces the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event (which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by requiring an Emergency Core 

Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 

operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The 

current TS requirements do not require any 

water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, 

to be Operable in certain conditions in Mode 

5. The change in requirement from two ECCS 

subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 

4 and 5 does not significantly affect the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event because the proposed Actions ensure 

equipment is available within the limiting 

drain time that is as capable of mitigating the 

event as the current requirements. The 

proposed controls provide escalating 

compensatory measures to be established as 

calculated drain times decrease, such as 

verification of a second method of water 

injection and additional confirmations that 

containment and/or filtration would be 

available if needed. 

The proposed change reduces or eliminates 

some requirements that were determined to 

be unnecessary to manage the consequences 

of an unexpected draining event, such as 

automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem 

and control room ventilation. These changes 

do not affect the consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated since a 

draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a 

previously evaluated accident and the 

requirements are not needed to adequately 

respond to a draining event. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change 

will not alter the design function of the 

equipment involved. Under the proposed 

change, some systems that are currently 

required to be operable during OPDRVs 

would be required to be available within the 

limiting drain time or to be in service 

depending on the limiting drain time. Should 

those systems be unable to be placed into 

service, the consequences are no different 

than if those systems were unable to perform 

their function under the current TS 

requirements. 

The event of concern under the current 

requirements and the proposed change is an 

unexpected draining event. The proposed 

change does not create new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators that would cause a draining event 

or a new or different kind of accident not 

previously evaluated or included in the 

design and licensing bases. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC. The current 

requirements do not have a stated safety basis 

and no margin of safety is established in the 

licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 

requirements is to protect Safety Limit 

2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to 

determine the limiting time in which the 

RPV water inventory could drain to the top 

of the active 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: Jon P. 

Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 

Attorney—Regulatory, 688 WCB, One 

Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226–1279. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of amendment request: July 25, 

2017. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17206A543. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would delete the Note 

associated with Surveillance 

Requirement 3.5.1.2 to reflect the 

Residual Heat Removal system’s design, 

and ensure that the system’s operation 

is consistent with the limiting condition 

for operation requirements in Technical 

Specification 3.5.1, ‘‘ECCS [Emergency 

Core Cooling System]—Operating.’’ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
51650 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No physical changes to the facility will 

occur as a result of this proposed 

amendment. The proposed change will not 

alter the physical design. The current 

Technical Specification Note could make 

Columbia susceptible to potential water 

hammer in the Residual Heat Removal 

system if in the Shutdown Cooling Mode of 

Residual Heat Removal in Mode 3 when 

swapping from the Shutdown Cooling to Low 

Pressure Core Injection mode of Residual 

Heat Removal system. The proposed License 

Amendment Request will eliminate the risk 

for cavitation of the pump and voiding in the 

suction piping, thereby avoiding potential to 

damage the Residual Heat Removal system, 

including water hammer. 

Therefore there is no 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 

analyzed? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

physical design, safety limits, or safety 

analysis assumptions associated with the 

operation of the plant. Accordingly, the 

change does not introduce any new accident 

initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely 

affect the capabilities of any plant structure, 

system, or component to perform their safety 

function. Deletion of the Technical 

Specification Note is appropriate because 

current Technical Specification could put the 

plant at risk for potential cavitation of the 

pump and voiding in the suction piping, 

resulting in potential to damage the Residual 

Heat Removal system, including water 

hammer. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

physical design, safety limits, or safety 

analysis assumptions associated with the 

operation of the plant. Accordingly, the 

change does not introduce any new accident 

initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely 

affect the capabilities of any plant structure, 

system, or component to perform their safety 

function. Deletion of the Technical 

Specification Note is appropriate because 

current Technical Specification could put the 

plant at risk for potential cavitation of the 

pump and voiding in the suction piping, 

resulting in potential to damage the Residual 

Heat Removal system, including water 

hammer. 

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: William A. 

Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20006– 

3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, 

Michigan 

Date of amendment request: March 

30, 2017, as supplemented by letter 

dated October 17, 2017. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML17089A380 and 

ML17290A342, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The license amendment request was 

originally noticed in the Federal 

Register on May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23623). 

The notice is being reissued in its 

entirety to include the revised scope, 

description of the amendment request, 

and proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. The 

proposed amendment would revise the 

PNP Cyber Security Plan Milestone 8 

full implementation date from 

December 15, 2017, to March 31, 2019. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the CSP [Cyber 

Security Plan] implementation schedule is 

administrative in nature. This change does 

not alter accident analysis assumptions, add 

any initiators, or affect the function of plant 

systems or the manner in which systems are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

inspected. The proposed change does not 

require any plant modifications which affect 

the performance capability of the structures, 

system, and components relied upon to 

mitigate the consequences of postulated 

accidents, and has no impact on the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the CSP 

implementation schedule is administrative in 

nature. This proposed change does not alter 

accident analysis assumptions, add any 

initiators, or affect the function of plant 

systems or the manner in which systems are 

operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 

inspected. The proposed change does not 

require any plant modifications which affect 

the performance capability of the structures, 

systems, and components relied upon to 

mitigate the consequences of postulated 

accidents and does not create the possibility 

of a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Plant safety margins are established 

through limiting conditions for operation, 

limiting safety system settings, and safety 

limits specified in the technical 

specifications. The proposed changes to the 

CSP implementation schedule is 

administrative in nature. In addition, the 

milestone date delay for full implementation 

of the CSP has no substantive impact because 

other measures have been taken which 

provide adequate protection during this 

period of time. Because there is no change to 

established safety margins as a result of this 

change, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William Glew, 

Associate General Counsel—Nuclear, 

Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton 

Ave., White Plains, NY 10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: 

September 14, 2017. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17257A193. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the James 

A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 51651 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

address secondary containment 

personnel access door openings. 

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 addresses conditions 

during which the secondary containment SR 

[Surveillance Requirement] 3.6.4.1.3 is not 

met. The secondary containment is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

increased. The consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated while utilizing the 

proposed changes are no different than the 

consequences of an accident while utilizing 

the existing four-hour Completion Time for 

an inoperable secondary containment. As a 

result, the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

increased. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

protection system design, create new failure 

modes, or change any modes of operation. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant; and no new 

or different kind of equipment will be 

installed. Consequently, there are no new 

initiators that could result in a new or 

different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change would provide an 

allowance for brief, inadvertent, 

simultaneous opening of redundant 

secondary containment personnel access 

doors during normal entry and exit 

conditions. The allowance for both an inner 

and outer secondary containment access door 

to be open simultaneously for entry and exit 

does not significantly impact the ability to 

maintain the required secondary containment 

vacuum as the doors are promptly closed 

after entry or exit, thereby restoring the 

secondary containment boundary. In 

addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous 

opening and closing of redundant secondary 

containment personnel access doors during 

entry and exit conditions does not 

significantly impact the ability of the 

Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System to 

maintain the required secondary containment 

vacuum. Therefore, the safety function of the 

secondary containment is not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Donald P. 

Ferraro, Assistant General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 

Exelon Way, Suite 305, Kennett Square, 

PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 

and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver 

County, Pennsylvania 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 

No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–440, 

Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, 

Lake County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: August 

11, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17227A172. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments change the 

respective technical specifications (TSs) 

as follows: 

The proposed changes revise Section 

1.3, ‘‘Completion Times,’’ and Section 

3.0, ‘‘LCO Applicability’’ of the TSs to 

clarify the use and application of the TS 

usage rules, as described below: 

• Section 1.3 is revised to clarify 

‘‘discovery’’ and to discuss exceptions 

to starting the Completion Time at 

condition entry. 

• Limiting Condition for Operation 

(LCO) 3.0.4.b is revised to clarify that 

LCO 3.0.4.a, LCO 3.0.4.b, and LCO 

3.0.4.c are independent options. 

• Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.3 

is revised to allow application of SR 

3.0.3 when an SR has not been 

previously performed and to clarify the 

application of SR 3.0.3. 

The proposed changes to the TSs are 

consistent with Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF–529), Revision 4, 

‘‘Clarify Use and Application Rules.’’ 

The NRC staff issued a safety evaluation 

for TSTF–529 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML16060A440) provided to the 

Technical Specifications Task Force in 

a letter dated April 21, 2016 (ADAMS 

Package Accession No. ML16060A441). 

This review included a review of the 

NRC staff’s evaluation, as well as the 

information provided in TSTF–529. The 

NRC letter dated April 21, 2016, 

included the model application, No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

(NSHC) Determination, and the model 

safety evaluation for referencing in 

license amendment applications. The 

licensee affirmed the applicability of the 

model NSHC determination in its 

application dated August 11, 2017, 

which is presented below. 

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, along with NRC edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and 

LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement 

for systems to be Operable and have no effect 

on the application of TS actions. The 

proposed change to SR 3.0.3 states that the 

allowance may only be used when there is 

a reasonable expectation the surveillance will 

be met when performed. Since the proposed 

change does not significantly affect system 

Operability, the proposed change will have 

no significant effect on the initiating events 

for accidents previously evaluated and will 

have no significant effect on the ability of the 

systems to mitigate accidents previously 

evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the TS usage rules 

does not affect the design or function of any 

plant systems. The proposed change does not 

change the Operability requirements for plant 

systems or the actions taken when plant 

systems are not operable. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change clarifies the 

application of Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 and 

does not result in changes in plant operation. 

SR 3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 

3.0.3 when an SR has not been previously 

performed if there is reasonable expectation 

that the SR will be met when performed. This 

expands the use of SR 3.0.3 while ensuring 

the affected system is capable of performing 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
51652 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 

its safety function. As a result, plant safety 

is either improved or unaffected. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David W. 

Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 

South Main Street, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 

Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: David J. 

Wrona. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake 

County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: 

September 11, 2017. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17254A495. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the technical specification (TS) 

requirements in TS 3.3.6.1, ‘‘Primary 

Containment and Drywell Isolation 

Instrumentation,’’ by adding an Actions 

note allowing intermittent opening, 

under administrative control, of 

penetration flow paths that are isolated. 

The proposed change is consistent with 

NRC-approved Technical Specifications 

Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF–306– 

A, Revision 2, ‘‘Add Action to [Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO)] 3.3.6.1 

to Give Option to Isolate the 

Penetration.’’ 

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 to adopt TSTF–306– 

A allows primary containment and drywell 

isolation valves to be unisolated under 

administrative controls when the associated 

isolation instrumentation is not operable. 

The isolation function is an accident 

mitigating function and is not an initiator of 

an accident previously evaluated. 

Administrative controls are required to be in 

effect when the valves are unisolated so that 

the penetration can be rapidly isolated when 

the need is indicated. 

The addition of the note that the 

penetration flow paths may be unisolated 

under administrative control provides 

consistency and clarification with the 

intermittent opening allowances contained in 

LCO 3.6.1.3, ‘‘Primary Containment Isolation 

Valves (PCIVs),’’ and LCO 3.6.5.3, ‘‘Drywell 

Isolation Valves,’’ allowed elsewhere in the 

Technical Specifications (TS). 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant equipment and 

does not change the method by which any 

safety-related system performs its function. 

The Perry Nuclear Power Plant TS currently 

allow containment and drywell isolation 

valves to be open under administrative 

control after being closed to comply with TS 

ACTIONS for inoperable valves. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

operation of plant equipment or the function 

of any equipment assumed in the accident 

analysis. The allowance to unisolate a 

penetration flow path will not have a 

significant effect on the margin of safety 

because the penetration flow path can be 

isolated manually, if needed. This change 

simply provides consistency with what is 

already allowed elsewhere in the TSs. There 

are no changes being made to safety analysis 

assumptions or results. When the valves are 

unisolated, the design basis function of 

containment isolation is maintained by 

administrative controls. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David W. 

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76 

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

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

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

September 14, 2017. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17257A300. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Technical Specifications related to 

inoperable Auxiliary Feedwater pump 

steam supply. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system is 

not an initiator of any design basis accident 

or event, and therefore the proposed changes 

do not increase the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated. The proposed 

changes to address the condition of one 

inoperable AFW pump due to an inoperable 

steam supply or one inoperable AFW pump 

due to an inoperable steam supply 

concurrent with one inoperable motor-driven 

AFW pump do not change the response of 

the plant to any accidents. The proposed 

changes do not adversely affect accident 

initiators or precursors nor alter the design 

assumptions, conditions, and configuration 

of the facility or the manner in which the 

plant is operated and maintained. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect the 

ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) to perform their intended 

safety function to mitigate the consequences 

of an initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The proposed changes do 

not affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release assumptions 

used in evaluating the radiological 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do 

not increase the types and amounts of 

radioactive effluent that may be released 

offsite, nor significantly increase individual 

or cumulative occupational/public radiation 

exposures. 

Therefore, facility operation in accordance 

with the proposed license amendments 

would not involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not result in a 

change in the manner in which the AFW 

system provides plant protection. The AFW 

system will continue to supply water to the 

Steam Generators to remove decay heat and 

other residual heat by delivering at least the 

minimum required flow rate. There are no 

design changes associated with the proposed 

changes. The changes to the required actions 

and completion times do not change any 

existing accident scenarios, nor create any 

new or different accident scenarios. The 

changes do not involve a physical alteration 

of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of 

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. In addition, the changes do not 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 51653 

impose any new or different requirements or 

eliminate any existing requirements. The 

changes do not alter assumptions made in the 

safety analysis. The proposed changes are 

consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions and current plant operating 

practice. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not impacted by these 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

result in plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. 

Therefore, operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed amendment 

will not involve a significant reduction in the 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light Company, 700 

Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/JB, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

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

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 

and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of amendment request: 

September 28, 2017. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17271A090. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.1.4, 

‘‘Rod Group Alignment Limits’’; 3.1.5, 

‘‘Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits’’; 

3.1.6, ‘‘Control Rod Insertion Limits’’; 

and 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod Position Indication,’’ to 

adopt Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–547, 

Revision 1, ‘‘Clarification of Rod 

Position Requirements (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15365A610). The NRC 

staff approved the TSTF and issued an 

associated model safety evaluation by 

letter dated March 4, 2016 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML16012A126). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Control and shutdown rods are assumed to 

insert into the core to shut down the reactor 

in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits 

ensure that adequate negative reactivity is 

available to provide the assumed shutdown 

margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap 

limits maintain an appropriate power 

distribution and reactivity insertion profile. 

Control and shutdown rods are initiators to 

several accidents previously evaluated, such 

as rod ejection. The proposed change does 

not change the limiting conditions for 

operation for the rods or make any technical 

changes to the Technical Specification (TS) 

Surveillance Requirements (SRs) governing 

the rods. Therefore, the proposed change has 

no effect on the probability of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Revising the TS Actions to provide a 

limited time to repair rod movement control 

has no effect on the SDM assumed in the 

accident analysis as the proposed Actions 

require verification that SDM is maintained. 

The effects on power distribution will not 

cause a significant increase in the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated as all TS requirements on power 

distribution continue to be applicable. 

Revising the TS Actions to provide an 

alternative to frequent use of the moveable 

incore detector system or the Power 

Distribution Monitoring System to verify the 

position of rods with inoperable rod position 

indicator does not change the requirement for 

the rods to be aligned and within the 

insertion limits. 

Therefore, the assumptions used in any 

accidents previously evaluated are 

unchanged and there is no significant 

increase in the consequences. 

The proposed change to resolve the 

differences in the TS ensure that the 

intended Actions are followed when 

equipment is inoperable. Actions taken with 

inoperable equipment are not assumptions in 

the accidents previously evaluated and have 

no significant effect on the consequences. 

The proposed change to eliminate an 

unnecessary action has no effect on the 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated as the analysis of those accidents 

did not consider the use of the action. 

The proposed change to increase 

consistency within the TS has no effect on 

the consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated as the proposed change clarifies 

the application of the existing requirements 

and does not change the intent. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different accident 

from any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

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

or different type of equipment will be 

installed). The change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analyses. The 

proposed change does not alter the limiting 

conditions for operation for the rods or make 

any technical changes to the Surveillance 

Requirements governing the rods. The 

proposed change maintains or improves 

safety when equipment is inoperable and 

does not introduce new failure modes. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to allow an 

alternative method of verifying rod position 

has no effect on the safety margin as actual 

rod position is not affected. The proposed 

change to provide time to repair rods that are 

operable but immovable does not result in a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety 

because all rods must be verified to be 

operable, and all other banks must be within 

the insertion limits. The remaining proposed 

changes to make the requirements internally 

consistent and to eliminate unnecessary 

actions do not affect the margin of safety as 

the changes do not affect the ability of the 

rods to perform their specified safety 

function. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, 

Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 

94120. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
51654 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 

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. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 

(ANO–1), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: April 24, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised technical 

specification requirements regarding 

steam generator tube inspections and 

reporting as described in Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–510, Revision 2, 

‘‘Revision to Steam Generator Program 

Inspection Frequencies and Tube 

Sample Selection,’’ using the 

Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Process for ANO–1. 

Date of issuance: October 10, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 258. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17235A519; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

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 

Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 

(ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: April 24, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised technical 

specification requirements regarding 

steam generator tube inspections and 

reporting as described in Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–510, Revision 2, 

‘‘Revision to Steam Generator Program 

Inspection Frequencies and Tube 

Sample Selection,’’ using the 

Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Process for ANO–2. 

Date of issuance: October 10, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 307. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17251A211; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 31093). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company and FirstEnergy Nuclear 

Generation, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–334 

and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: 

September 28, 2016, as supplemented 

by letters dated May 20, 2017; 

September 7, 2017; and September 20, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Beaver Valley 

Power Station, Units 1 and 2, emergency 

action level (EAL) scheme to one based 

on Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 

document NEI 99–01, Revision 6, 

‘‘Development of Emergency Action 

Level for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ 

November 2012. 

Date of issuance: October 12, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 300 (Unit 1) and 

189 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17216A570; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–66 and NPF–73: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 20, 2016 (81 FR 

92868). The supplemental letters dated 

May 20, 2017; September 7, 2017; and 

September 20, 2017, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 12, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 

No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio 

Date of application for amendment: 

January 11, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changes Technical 

Specification 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Protection 

System (RPS) Instrumentation’’ for 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 

No. 1, by modifying the format and by 

providing an alternative set of required 

actions, with longer completion times, 

to be used when the ultrasonic flow 

meter is out of service. 

Date of issuance: October 19, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 296. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17270A112; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safely Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–3: The amendment revised the 

renewed facility operating license and 

technical specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 

13665). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 19, 

2017. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Notices 51655 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No. 1, 

Lake County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: April 26, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the PNPP 

Environmental Protection Plan 

(Nonradiological) to clarify and enhance 

wording, to remove duplicative or 

outdated program information, and to 

relieve the burden of submitting 

unnecessary or duplicative information 

to the NRC. 

Date of issuance: October 19, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 178. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17257A098; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

58: Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 31097). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 19, 

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: May 2, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses’ ‘‘Fire 

Protection’’ license conditions. The 

changes incorporated new references 

into these license conditions that 

approved a revision to plant 

modifications previously approved in 

the March 31, 2016, NRC issuance of 

National Fire Protection Association 

Standard 805 license amendments 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML15344A346). 

Date of issuance: October 23, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 242 (Unit No. 1) 

and 193 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17248A379; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 31098). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 23, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, 

Iowa 

Date of amendment request: March 

31, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the DAEC Plume 

Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning 

Zone (EPZ) in its Emergency 

Preparedness Plan. The DAEC 

Evacuation Time Estimates Study has 

also been revised to encompass the 

changes proposed to the DAEC Plume 

Exposure Pathway EPZ boundary. 

Date of issuance: October 18, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days. 

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

Accession No. ML17212A646; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–49: The amendment revised 

the Emergency Plan. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26132). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 18, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts Bar 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea 

County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: October 

20, 2016, as supplemented by letters 

dated May 5, 2017, and July 21, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification 3.7.12, ‘‘Auxiliary 

Building Gas Treatment System 

(ABGTS),’’ to provide an action when 

both trains of the ABGTS are inoperable 

due to the auxiliary building secondary 

containment enclosure boundary being 

inoperable. 

Date of issuance: October 17, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 116 (Unit 1) and 16 

(Unit 2). A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17236A057; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

90 and NPF–96: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 28, 2017 (82 FR 

12137). The supplemental letters dated 

May 5, 2017, and July 21, 2017, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Anne T. Boland, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23749 Filed 11–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0215] 

Yttrium-90 Microsphere Brachytherapy 

Sources and Devices TheraSphere®

and SIR-Spheres®

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft guidance; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is revising its 

licensing guidance for licenses 

authorizing the use of Yttrium-90 (Y–90) 

Microsphere Brachytherapy Sources and 

Devices TheraSphere® and SIRSpheres®. The NRC is requesting public 

comment on the draft revision of the 

licensing guidance (Rev. 10). The 

document has been revised to 

significantly update the criteria for 

training and experience, medical event 

reporting, inventory requirement 

specifications, and waste disposal 

issues. The revised guidance document 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES