Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 38714-38722 [2017-16998]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38714-38722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16998]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0175]


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 July 18 to July 31, 2017. The last biweekly 
notice was published on August 1, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 14, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0175. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWFN-8-D36M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, 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-2017-0175, 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 publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0175.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://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-2017-0175, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject, in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  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.

[[Page 38715]]

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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/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, Federally-recognized 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 E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at 
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10

[[Page 38716]]

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 https://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 https://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 E-Filing 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free 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.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: June 22, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17173A877.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
PVNGS Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate TS Section 5.5.8, 
``Inservice Testing Program.'' A new defined term, ``Inservice Testing 
Program,'' will be added to the TS definitions section. This request is 
consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify 
SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 
Testing.'' The proposed change eliminates the PVNGS TS, Section 5.5.8, 
to remove requirements duplicated in the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers Code for Operations and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants 
(ASME OM Code) Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.''
    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 Chapter 5, Administrative Controls, 
Section 5.5, Programs and Manuals, by eliminating the Inservice 
Testing Program specification. Requirements in the IST [Inservice 
Testing] Program are removed, as they are duplicative of 
requirements in the ASME OM Code, as clarified by Code Case OMN-20, 
Inservice Test Frequency. Other requirements in Section 5.5.8, 
Inservice Testing Program are eliminated because the NRC has 
determined

[[Page 38717]]

their inclusion in the TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined 
term, Inservice Testing Program, is added which references the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f).
    Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of 
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the 
proposed change. Inservice test periods under Code Case OMN-20 are 
equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with the 
exception that testing periods greater than two years may be 
extended by up to six months to facilitate test scheduling and 
consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable 
for performance of the required testing. The testing period 
extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate 
any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to 
be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of 
inservice tests utilizing the allowances in Code Case OMN-20 will 
not significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. 
As a result, the availability of the affected components, as well as 
their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated, is not affected.
    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 alter the design or configuration 
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will 
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of 
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of 
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing 
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
    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 eliminates some requirements from the TS in 
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code 
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with periods 
greater than two years to be extended by six months to facilitate 
test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that 
may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The 
testing period extension will not affect the ability of the 
components to respond to an accident as the components are required 
to be operable during the testing period extension. The proposed 
change will eliminate the existing TS SR 3.0.3 allowance to defer 
performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of the 
specified testing period, and instead will require an assessment of 
the missed test on equipment operability. This assessment will 
consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment operability). 
Should the component be inoperable, the Technical Specifications 
provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety is protected. 
The proposed change also eliminates a statement that nothing in the 
ASME Code should be construed to supersede the requirements of any 
TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be incorrect. However, 
elimination of the statement will have no effect on plant operation 
or 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 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Station (VY), Vernon, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: May 1, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17124A429. This request was 
supplemented by information submitted by the licensee by letter dated 
June 13, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17166A234).
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
extend the scheduled implementation date for Milestone 8 of the VY 
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) to July 31, 2019, to support the 
decommissioning status of VY.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change 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 facility 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or Inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any facility modifications which affect the performance capability 
of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 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 changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the CSP implementation schedule is 
administrative in nature.
    This proposed change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of facility 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any facility modifications which affect the performance capability 
of the SSCs 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 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 change 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, including 
completing and maintaining interim Milestones 1 through 7, 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 proposed change, no significant reduction in a margin of 
safety is involved.
    Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Susan Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue

[[Page 38718]]

NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17171A301.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise a surveillance requirement (SR) in Technical Specification 
3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to clarify that the intent of the 
surveillance is to verify that only the non-critical diesel generator 
(DG) trips are bypassed on an emergency core cooling system initiation 
signal. The proposed changes are consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical Specifications 
Change Traveler 400-A, Revision 1, ``Clarify SR on Bypass of DG 
Automatic Trips.''
    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 clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which 
is to verify that non-critical automatic diesel generator (DG) trips 
are bypassed in an accident. The DG automatic trips and their 
bypasses are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated. 
Therefore, the probability of any accident is not significantly 
increased. The function of the DGs in mitigating accidents is not 
changed. The revised SR continues to ensure the DGs will operate as 
assumed in the accident analyses. Therefore, the consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated are not affected.
    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 clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which 
is to verify that non-critical automatic DG trips are bypassed in an 
accident. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration 
of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation.
    Thus, this 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 clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which 
is to verify that non-critical automatic DG trips are bypassed in an 
accident. Performance of the clarified SR will verify that the non-
critical trips are bypassed on simulated ECCS [emergency core 
cooling system] actuation signals to ensure that actuation of a non-
critical trip does not take a DG out of service during an emergency. 
The bypassing of the non-critical automatic DG trips will maintain 
DG availability during an emergency so that it will be able to 
perform its assumed safety function. As such, the safety function of 
the DGs remains unaffected, so the change does not affect the 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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station 
(FCS), Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: June 9, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17160A405.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete Technical Specifications (TSs) 2.8.3(6), ``Spent Fuel Cask 
Loading,'' and associated Figure 2-11, ``Limiting Burnup Criteria for 
Acceptable Storage in Spent Fuel Cask''; TS 3.2 Table 3-5(24), ``Spent 
Fuel Cask Loading''; TS 4.3.1.3, Design Features associated with spent 
fuel casks; and portions of TS 3.2, Table 3-4(5), Footnote (4) on boron 
concentration associated with cask loading. The deletion of the TS 
sections will bring the FCS TSs into conformance with 10 CFR 50.68(c) 
``Criticality accident requirements.''
    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 simply bring[s] the [station's] technical 
specifications into compliance with the current version of 10 CFR 
50.68. There is no change to probability or consequences of any 
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 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 [any] safety limits, or 
safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the 
plant. The proposed change does not introduce any new accident 
initiators, nor does the change reduce or adversely affect the 
capabilities of any plant structure or system in the performance of 
its safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed 
change. The proposed change does not change the design function of 
any equipment assumed to operate in the event of an accident.
    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 A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station 
(FCS), Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: June 16, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17167A057.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
remove the FCS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) from the FCS Operating License 
Condition.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination:

[[Page 38719]]

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 remove the [FCS CSP] requirement 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 
[SSCs] 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 amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to remove the [FCS CSP] requirement 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 [SSCs] 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 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 amendment proposes the elimination of the CSP as set forth 
in the CSP Implementation Schedule and associated regulatory 
commitments. The elimination of the CSP does not involve 
modifications to any safety-related SSCs. The proposed amendment is 
based on the comparison of the risks at an operating nuclear power 
reactor as opposed to a nuclear power reactor that has permanently 
ceased operations and has removed all fuel from the reactor vessel. 
The spectrum of possible accidents are significantly fewer and the 
risk of an offsite radiological release is significantly lower for a 
permanently defueled reactor.
    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 A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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: June 23, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17179A171.
    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 COL Appendix 
A, Technical Specifications (TS). Specifically, the proposed changes 
revise plant-specific Tier 2 information to add the time delay assumed 
in the safety analysis for the reactor trip on a safeguards actuation 
(``S'') signal to UFSAR Table 15.0-4a. This is also reflected in the 
proposed revision to TS 3.3.4, Reactor Trip System (RTS) Engineered 
Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation, to add a 
surveillance requirement to verify the RTS response time for this ``S'' 
signal.
    The request also includes proposed changes to TS 3.3.7, RTS Trip 
Actuation Devices, to clarify that the requirements for reactor trip 
breaker (RTB) undervoltage and shunt trip mechanisms apply only to in-
service RTBs. In addition, the request includes proposed changes to TS 
3.3.9, ESFAS Manual Initiation, to correct the nomenclature for the 
Chemical and Volume Control System, which is advertently stated as the 
Chemical Volume and Control System.
    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 NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The changes do not involve an interface with any [structure, 
system, and component (SSC)] accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents 
evaluated in the plant-specific UFSAR are not affected. The proposed 
changes do not involve a change to any mitigation sequence or the 
predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident 
conditions, thus, 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 adversely affect any system or 
design function or equipment qualification as the change does not 
modify any SSCs that prevent safety functions from being performed. 
The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or 
sequence of events that could adversely affect safety or safety-
related equipment.
    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 would not affect any safety-related design 
code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or 
existing design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 
requested 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 Dixon-Herrity.

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

[[Page 38720]]

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 (PVNGS), 
Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of application for amendment: November 25, 2015, as 
supplemented by letters dated January 29, June 30, October 6, November 
9, and November 23, 2016; and March 3 and May 24, 2017.
    Brief Description of amendment: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, by modifying the requirements 
to incorporate the results of an updated criticality safety analysis 
for both new and spent fuel storage.
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--203, Unit 2--203, and Unit 3--203. A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17188A412; 
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 and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR 
19644). The supplements dated June 30, October 6, November 9, and 
November 23, 2016; and March 3 and May 24, 2017, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 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 application for amendments: December 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' to add a 
Note to TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.3 Required 
Actions A.2, C.2, and E.2 to allow isolation devices that are locked, 
sealed, or otherwise secured to be verified by use of administrative 
means. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-269-A, Revision 2, 
``Allow administrative means of position verification for locked or 
sealed valves.''
    Date of issuance: July 21, 2017.
    Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of their 
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 290 and 286. A publicly available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17165A441; 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 licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR 
19098).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 21, 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 application for amendments: December 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.1.8, ``PHYSICS TESTS Exceptions,'' to allow the 
numbers of channels required by the Limiting Condition of Operation 
(LCO) section of TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation,'' to be reduced from ``4'' to ``3'' to allow one 
nuclear instrumentation channel to be used as an input to the 
reactivity computer for physics testing without placing the nuclear 
instrumentation channel in a tripped condition. The changes are 
consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-315-A, Revision 0, ``Reduce plant trips due to spurious signals to 
the NIS [Nuclear Instrumentation System] during physics testing.''
    Date of issuance: July 26, 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.: 291 (Unit 1) and 287 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17172A428; 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 licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR 
19098).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station 
(Columbia), Benton County, Washington

    Date of application for amendment: July 14, 2016, as supplemented 
by letter dated July 5, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Columbia 
Technical Specifications (TSs) consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, 
``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance 
Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' dated 
October 21, 2015.
    Date of issuance: July 24, 2017.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 243. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17187A257; documents related to this amendment

[[Page 38721]]

are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 27, 2016 (81 
FR 66304). The supplemental letter dated July 5, 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 July 24, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: July 25, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Waterford 
3 Technical Specifications (TSs) consistent with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications 
Change Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program 
Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application 
to Section 5.5 Testing,'' dated October 21, 2015.
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 250. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17192A007; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 
78647).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket No. 50-266, Point Beach 
Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Unit 1, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, 
Wisconsin

    Date amendment request: July 29, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated April 20, 2017. Publicly-available versions of these documents 
are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16237A066 and ML17110A068, 
respectively.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment consists of changes 
to the technical specifications (TSs) for PBNP, Unit 1. The amendment 
makes changes to TS 3.4.13, ``RCS Operational LEAKAGE,'' TS 5.5.8, 
``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 5.6.8, ``Steam Generator Tube 
Inspection Report,'' in order to implement the H* (pronounced H-star) 
alternate repair criteria on a permanent basis.
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17159A778; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-24: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 
87961). The supplemental letter dated April 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 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 July 27, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station 
(FCS), Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: September 2, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 3 and April 5, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Nuclear 
Radiological Emergency Response Plan for FCS for the plant condition 
following permanent cessation of power operations and defueling to 
reflect changes in the shift staffing and Emergency Response 
Organization staffing.
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 291. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17123A348; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 
78650). The supplemental letters dated March 3 and April 5, 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 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 July 27, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station 
(FCS), Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 27, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to make administrative changes to align staffing 
for permanently defueled condition at FCS.
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 292. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17165A465; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 
78650).
    The supplemental letter dated April 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 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 July 28, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 38722]]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: January 20, 2017, and supplemented by 
letter dated June 6, 2017.
    Description of amendment: The amendments consist of changes to the 
VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the 
form of departures from plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 
information, Combined License (COL) Appendix A Technical 
Specifications, and COL Appendix C information. The departures consist 
of in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) minimum volume 
changes in plant-specific UFSAR Table 14.3-2, COL Appendix A Technical 
Specifications 3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8 and Surveillance Requirements 
3.5.6.2 and 3.5.8.2 and COL Appendix C (and associated plant-specific 
Tier 1) Table 2.2.3-4. The changes restore the desired consistency of 
these sections with the UFSAR IRWST minimum volume value in other 
locations.
    Date of issuance: July 6, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 81 and 80. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML17171A137; documents related to this amendment 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 
13662). The supplemental letter dated June 6, 2017, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application request 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 the Safety Evaluation dated July 6, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: February 1, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 17, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,'' and 
TS 3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency Outside Air Supply (CREOAS) 
System,'' by changing the run time of monthly surveillance requirements 
for the standby gas treatment and control room emergency outside air 
supply systems from 10 hours to 15 minutes. This change is consistent 
with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, 
Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to 
Operate for 10 hours per Month,'' with minor variations. The notice of 
availability and model safety evaluation of TSTF-522, Revision 0, were 
published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 268 (Unit 1) and 250 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17187A297; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR 
17461). The supplemental letter dated May 17, 2017, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 31, 2017, March 1, 2017 and March 10, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments would extend the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.14.B allowed outage time for one 
inoperable emergency service water (ESW) pump from 7 to 14 days to 
provide operational flexibility for ESW pump maintenance and repairs.
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 290 and 290. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17170A183; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments revised 
the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR 
73443). The letters dated January 31, 2017, March 1, 2017 and March 10, 
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 July 28, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-16998 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P