Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 73232-73245 [2015-29696]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73232-73245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29696]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0261]


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 27, 2015, to November 9, 2015. The 
last biweekly notice was published on November 10, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by December 24, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed January 25, 2016.

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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0261. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn M. Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0261 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-2015-0261.
     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/

[[Page 73233]]

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 the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
     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-2015-0261, facility name, unit 
number(s), 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 should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated 
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or 
an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/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 requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at 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 
requestor/petitioner shall 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 requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements 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, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the

[[Page 73234]]

hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to 
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, 
consistent with NRC's regulations, policies and procedures.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day 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)-(iii).
    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 decide 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 held 
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 any 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 by 
December 28, 2015. 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 for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that 
under Sec.  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. A State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the 
opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not 
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in 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 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. Persons desiring to make a limited 
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by 
January 25, 2016.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, 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 participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). 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. 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 request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (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. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are 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 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they

[[Page 73235]]

can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
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 Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 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 
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, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document 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://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require 
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a 
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. 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.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day 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)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15246A118.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
MPS3 Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.3, to specify the spent fuel pool 
storage (SFP) capacity limit in terms of the total number of fuel 
assemblies. Specifically, the description of the MPS3 SFP storage 
capacity would be revised to remove the word ``available'' from TS 
5.6.3 and specify a storage capacity limit of 1860 fuel assemblies.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not represent any physical change to 
plant systems, structures, or components (SSC), or to procedures 
established for plant operation. The proposed amendment would not 
increase the likelihood of a malfunction of any plant SSC. 
Therefore, initial conditions associated with, and systems credited 
for mitigating the consequences of accidents previously evaluated 
remain unchanged.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed 
and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment 
associated with the proposed amendment. Similarly, the proposed 
amendment would not physically change any plant systems, structures, 
or components involved in the mitigation or any postulated 
accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a new or 
different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the proposed 
amendment does not create the possibility of a new failure mode 
associated with any equipment or personnel failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment would 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 amendment does not represent any physical change to 
plant systems, structures, or components, or to procedures 
established for plant operation. The proposed amendment does not 
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses 
and current design limits will continue to be met. The proposed 
amendment does not alter or create a new mode of plant operation or 
configuration. Margins of safety are not significantly reduced.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed change to TS 5.6.3 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan
    Date of amendment request: September 24, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15268A422.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would delete the 
note associated with Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4 to reflect 
the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system

[[Page 73236]]

design and ensure the RHR system operation is consistent with technical 
specification (TS) 3.5.1 Limiting Condition for Operation 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.
    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 TS SR note could make Fermi 2 
susceptible to potential water hammer in the RHR system if a 
subsystem is operating in the shutdown cooling mode of RHR in Mode 3 
and is required to swap from the shutdown cooling to LPCI [low 
pressure coolant injection] mode of RHR. The proposed LAR will 
eliminate the risk for cavitation of the pump and voiding in the 
suction piping, thereby avoiding potential to damage the RHR system, 
including water hammer.
    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 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 TS SR note is appropriate 
because current TS could put the plant at risk for potential 
cavitation of the pump and voiding in the suction piping, resulting 
in potential occurrence of water hammer and damage the RHR system.
    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 conforms to NRC regulatory guidance 
regarding the content of plant technical specifications. The 
proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, 
or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the 
plant.
    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.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; and 
Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 
and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
    Date of amendment request: August 20, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15295A016.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow the use of Optimized 
Zirlo\TM\. Specifically, the proposed change would modify TS 4.2.1 to 
add Optimized Zirlo\TM\ as an allowable cladding and TS 5.6.5.b to add 
associated methodologies for determining the core operating limits 
report.
    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 TS changes add flexibility in the selection of fuel 
rod cladding materials for use at CNS and MNS. The proposed change 
of adding a cladding material does not result in an increase to the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. TS 
4.2.1 addresses the fuel assembly design, and currently specifies 
that ``Each assembly shall consist of a matrix of either 
ZIRLO[supreg] or Zircaloy fuel rods . . .''. The proposed change 
will add Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ to the approved fuel rod cladding 
materials listed in this TS. In addition, a reference to the 
Westinghouse VANTAGE+ fuel assembly core reference report, WCAP-
12610-P-A, and the topical report for Optimized ZIRLO\TM\, WCAP-
12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, will be included in the 
listing of approved methods used to determine the core operating 
limits for CNS and MNS given in TS 5.6.5.b. Westinghouse topical 
report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\, provides the details and results of material testing of 
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ compared to standard ZIRLO[supreg], as well as 
the material properties to be used in various models and 
methodologies when analyzing Optimized ZIRLO\TM\. As the nuclear 
industry pursues longer operating cycles with increased fuel 
discharge burnup and fuel duty, the corrosion performance 
requirements for the nuclear fuel cladding become more demanding. 
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ was developed to meet these industry needs by 
providing a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining the composition 
and physical properties, such as mechanical strength, similar to 
standard ZIRLO[supreg]. Fuel rod internal pressure has also become 
more limiting due to changes such as increased fuel duty and use of 
integral fuel burnable absorbers. Reducing the associated corrosion 
buildup by using Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ in turn reduces temperature 
feedback effects, providing additional margin to the fuel rod 
internal pressure design criterion. Fuel with Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ 
cladding will continue to satisfy the pertinent design basis 
operating limits, so cladding integrity is maintained. There are no 
changes that will adversely affect the ability of existing 
components and systems to mitigate the consequences of any accident. 
Therefore, addition of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ to the allowable cladding 
materials for CNS and MNS does not result in an increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The NRC has previously approved use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel 
cladding material in Westinghouse fueled reactors provided that 
licensees ensure compliance with the Conditions and Limitations set 
forth in the NRC Safety Evaluation for the topical report. 
Confirmation that these Conditions are satisfied is performed as 
part of the normal core reload process.
    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 TS changes add flexibility in the selection of fuel 
rod cladding materials for use at CNS and MNS. Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ 
was developed to provide a reduced cladding corrosion rate while 
maintaining the benefits of mechanical strength and resistance to 
accelerated corrosion from potential abnormal chemistry conditions. 
The fuel rod design bases are established to satisfy the general and 
specific safety criteria addressed in the CNS and MNS [Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR, Chapter 15 (Accident Analyses). The 
fuel rods are designed to prevent excessive fuel temperatures, 
excessive fuel rod internal gas pressures due to fission gas 
releases, and excessive cladding stresses and strains. Westinghouse 
topical report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, 
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\, provides the details and results of material 
testing of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ compared to standard ZIRLO[supreg], 
as well as the material properties to be used in various models and 
methodologies when analyzing Optimized ZIRLO\TM\. The original

[[Page 73237]]

fuel design basis requirements have been maintained. No new single 
failure mechanisms will be created, and there are no alterations to 
plant equipment or procedures that would introduce any new or unique 
operational modes or accident precursors. Therefore, addition of 
another approved cladding material of similar composition and 
properties as the current approved cladding materials to the CNS and 
MNS TS does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident or malfunction from those previously evaluated within the 
UFSAR.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the 
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ are not significantly 
different from those of standard ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ 
is expected to perform similarly to standard ZIRLO[supreg] for all 
normal operating and accident scenarios, including both loss of 
coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, 
where the slight difference in Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ material 
properties relative to standard ZIRLO[supreg] could have some impact 
on the overall accident scenario, plant-specific LOCA analyses using 
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ properties demonstrates that the acceptance 
criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 has been satisfied, 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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15198A028.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specifications required actions for inoperability of 
auxiliary feedwater pumps.
    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?
    The proposed change will not result in any significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. The auxiliary feedwater system mitigates the consequences 
of any event with a loss of normal feedwater. By prohibiting a plant 
maneuver when there are no operable auxiliary feedwater pumps, the 
plant will not be placed into a less safe condition where the 
probability could be increased, consequences could be exacerbated, 
or different consequences could result for an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed enhancements and administrative changes are 
modifications to existing actions that have no potential to impact 
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?
    The proposed change does not involve physical modification of 
the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed. 
The proposed change will require prompt action to restore at least 
one auxiliary feedwater pump to operable status when all three are 
inoperable. Restricting a power maneuver until at least one 
auxiliary feedwater pump has been restored to operable status will 
preclude entry into a less safe condition with no auxiliary 
feedwater available for accident mitigation. This change will not 
have an adverse effect on equipment required for accident 
mitigation.
    The proposed enhancements and administrative changes are 
modifications to existing actions that have no potential to impact 
equipment required for accident mitigation.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety. No plant equipment or accident analyses will be 
affected. Additionally, the proposed change will not relax any 
criteria used to establish safety limits, safety system settings, or 
the bases for any limiting conditions for operation. Safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected. Plant operation will continue 
within the design basis.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
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: August 31, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15254A180.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specifications to risk-inform requirements regarding selected 
Required Action End States. Minor variations or deviations are included 
in the request, but the proposed amendments are otherwise consistent 
with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-422, Revision 2, ``Change in Technical Specifications End States 
(CE NPSD-1186),'' dated December 22, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML093570241) (76 FR 19510, April 7, 2011).
    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 allows a change to certain required end 
states when the Technical Specification (TS) Completion Times (CTs) 
for remaining in power operation are exceeded. Most of the requested 
TS changes are to permit an end state of hot shutdown (Mode 4) 
rather than an end state of cold shutdown (Mode 5) contained in the 
current TS. The request was limited to: (1) Those end states where 
entry into the shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) entry is 
initiated by inoperability of a single train of equipment or a 
restriction on a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise 
stated in the applicable TS, and (3) the primary purpose is to 
correct the initiating condition and return to power operation a 
[as] soon as is practical. Risk insights from both the qualitative 
and quantitative risk assessments were used in specific TS 
assessments. Such assessments are documented in Section 5.5 of CE 
NIPSD-1186, Rev 0, ``Technical Justification for the Risk-Informed 
Modification to Selected Required Action End States for CEOG 
[Combustion Engineering Owners Group] Member PWRs [Pressurized Water 
Reactors].'' They provide an integrated discussion of deterministic 
and probabilistic issues, focusing on specific TSs, which are used 
to support the proposed TS end state and associated restrictions. 
Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is 
not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an 
accident after adopting proposed TSTF-422 are no different

[[Page 73238]]

than the consequences of an accident prior to adopting TSTF-422. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a 
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change 
will further minimize possible concerns.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    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 does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Allowing a change to certain required end states when the TS CTs for 
remaining in power operation are exceeded, i.e., entry into hot 
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is 
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or 
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change and the 
commitment by the licensee to adhere to the guidance in WCAP-16364-
NP, Revision 2, ``Implementation Guidance for Risk Informed 
Modification to Selected Required Action End States at combustion 
Engineering NSSS [Nuclear Steam Supply System] Plants (TSTF-422),'' 
will further minimize possible concerns.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows, for some systems, entry into hot 
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is 
assessed and managed. The CEOG's [Combustion Engineering Owners 
Group] risk assessment approach is comprehensive and follows NRC 
staff guidance as documented in Regulatory Guides (RGs) 1.174 and 
1.177. In addition, the analyses show that the criteria of the 
three-tiered approach for allowing TS changes are met. The risk 
impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-
tiered approach recommended in RG 1.177. A risk assessment was 
performed to justify the proposed TS changes. The net change to the 
margin of safety is insignificant.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station 
(FCS), Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: September 10, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15258A680.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) to allow the use of the equipment 
classification methodology in industry standard American National 
Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS)-58.14-2011, 
``Safety and Pressure Integrity Classification Criteria for Light Water 
Reactors.''
    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 the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) 
allows the use of the methodology from ANSI/ANS-58.14-2011, Safety 
and Pressure Integrity Classification Criteria for Light Water 
Reactors, for the classification of structures, systems and 
components (SSCs) in accordance with the Current Licensing Basis 
(CLB). These changes are applicable only to the classification of 
equipment and have no impact on the accidents and transients as 
defined in the Current Licensing Basis. The methodology of the 
standard requires that the plant design basis be reviewed and 
applied to the classification process which assures that there is no 
significant change in the probability or consequences of accidents.
    The USAR accident analyses assume the proper functioning of 
systems in demonstrating the adequacy of the plant's design. The 
methodology of ANSI/ANS-58.14-2011 is intended to assure equipment 
is classified correctly and in accordance with the CLB. This change, 
therefore, does not change the intended function of any plant 
equipment nor does this change affect or increase the probability of 
equipment malfunction which could increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the USAR.
    The proposed change does not degrade the performance of a system 
assumed to function in the accident analyses. Also, this change does 
not increase the challenges to safety systems assumed to function in 
the accident analysis such that safety system performance is 
degraded below the design basis without compensating effects.
    FCS is licensed to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.67 and 10 CFR 
20. These licensed limits are maintained by radiological barrier 
performance which is unaffected by this change. Hence, there will be 
no change in radiological barrier performance that would increase 
the dose to on-site personnel (10 CFR 20) or the public at the site 
boundary (10 CFR 100.11/10 CFR 50.67).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated in the USAR.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment allows the use of the NRC approved 
methodology of ANSI/ANS-58.14-2011 to facilitate proper equipment 
classification. This standard will be used to confirm that equipment 
has been properly classified in accordance with the FCS Current 
Licensing Basis. This approach will not introduce any methods or 
analytical techniques that could create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident. Application of a classification 
methodology does not create an accident.
    No new unanalyzed interactions between systems or components 
will be created by the application of ANSI/ANS-58.14-2011. The 
proposed change does not create a new failure mechanism or new 
accident initiator. The proposed amendment does not involve a change 
in methods governing the operation of the plant systems or 
components.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated in the USAR.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This proposed amendment revises the CLB to allow the use of 
ANSI/ANS-58.14-2011 for equipment classification. The proposed 
change will not modify, change, revise or otherwise affect any 
current calculations concerning the plant accident analysis or 
supporting basis for which the Technical Specifications, Technical 
Specification Bases or USAR safety margins were established. The 
proposed amendment is consistent with regulatory guidance.
    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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.

[[Page 73239]]

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15254A464.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 2.7, ``Electrical Systems,'' to replace 
the numerical volume requirements for stored diesel fuel and 
lubricating oil inventory with requirements that state that volumes 
equivalent to 7 days and 6 days of fuel oil are available. The licensee 
proposes to remove the numerical fuel oil volume requirements from TS 
2.7(1)m and TS 2.7(3)a and substitute an equivalent requirement for 7 
days and 6 days of fuel; revise the value of the required fuel 
inventory in storage tank FO-10; remove the numerical lubricating oil 
volume requirements from TS 2.7(1)n and TS 2.7(3)b and replace them 
with equivalent 7-day and 6-day requirements; and add a minimum 
inventory for fuel and lubricating oil to TS 3.2, Table 3-5, 
Surveillance Requirements 9a and 9b, respectively. The licensee 
proposes to move the numerical volumes equivalent to 7-day and 6-day 
supplies to the TS Bases. The proposal removes the current numerical 
volume requirements for stored fuel from the TS and places the 
corrected value in the TS Bases and moves the associated current 7-day 
basis from the TS Bases to the TS. The proposed changes are generally 
consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil Volume 
Values to Licensee Control,'' but include plant-specific variances.
    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 places the numerical volume of diesel fuel 
oil and lube oil required to support seven-day operation of the 
onsite DGs [diesel generators], and the numerical volume equivalent 
to a six-day supply, in the TS Bases under licensee control. The 
required volumes of fuel oil equivalent to a seven-day and six-day 
supply is calculated considering the DG manufacturer's fuel oil 
consumption rates and worst DG loading resulting from a loss of 
offsite power coincident with a design basis accident. The numerical 
volume of lube oil equivalent to a seven-day and six-day supply is 
based on the DG manufacturer's consumption values for the run time 
of the DG. The requirement to meet Updated Safety Analysis Report 
(USAR) diesel loading assumptions, maintain a seven-day supply, and 
the actions taken when the volume of fuel oil available is less than 
a seven-day or a six-day supply have not changed. These requirements 
remain consistent with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and 
neither the probability nor the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated will be affected by the proposed change.
    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 change does 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. The change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures 
that diesel generator loads operate as assumed in the accident 
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change places the numerical volume of diesel fuel 
oil and lubricating oil required to support 7-day operation of an 
onsite diesel generator, and the numerical volume equivalent to a 6-
day supply, in the TS Bases under licensee control. As the basis for 
the existing limits on diesel fuel oil, and lubricating oil are 
unchanged, no change is made to the accident analysis assumptions 
and no margin of safety is reduced as a result of this change.
    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: Michael T. Markley.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15254A445.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification requirements to adopt the changes described in 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler-TSTF-426, Revision 
5, ``Revise or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO [Limiting 
Condition for Operation] 3.0.3--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiatives 
6b & 6c.''
    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 provides a short Completion Time to restore 
an inoperable system for conditions under which the existing 
Technical Specifications require a plant shutdown to begin within 
one hour in accordance with Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
2.0.1. Entering into Technical Specification Actions is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly 
increased. The consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
that may occur during the proposed Completion Times are no different 
from the consequences of the same accident during the existing one 
hour allowance. As a result, the consequences of any 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.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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?

[[Page 73240]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change increase[s] the time the plant may operate 
without the ability to perform an assumed safety function. The 
analyses in [Westinghouse Electric Company LLC technical report] 
WCAP-16125-NP-A, ``Justification for Risk-Informed Modifications to 
Selected Technical Specifications for Conditions Leading to Exigent 
[P]lant Shutdown,'' Revision 2, August 2010 [(ADAMS Accession No. 
ML110070500)], demonstrated that there is an acceptably small 
increase in risk due to a limited period of continued operation in 
these conditions and that this risk is balanced by avoiding the 
risks associated with a plant shutdown. As a result, the change to 
the margin of safety provided by requiring a plant shutdown within 
one hour is not significant.
    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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: October 15, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15288A528.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SR) to 
increase the allowable time for the Standby Gas Treatment System to 
draw down the secondary containment to negative pressure from 2 minutes 
to 10 minutes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), Southern Nuclear 
Operating Company has provided its analysis of the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration as stated below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This amendment proposes to increase the post-accident drawdown 
time for the secondary containment from its current value of 120 
seconds, to 10 minutes. No physical modifications are proposed for 
any system, structure, or component (SSC) designed for the 
prevention of previously analyzed events. Neither does this 
amendment request change the operation or maintenance of any of 
those SSCs; accordingly the amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated 
event.
    The increase in the drawdown time does not result in a 
significant increase in the consequences of a previously analyzed 
accident because the offsite doses, the main control room dose, and 
the technical support center dose do not significantly increase. As 
described in the Technical Evaluation section of this amendment 
request, the off-site doses for the Low Population Zone (LPZ) and 
the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) increase from 0.75 and 0.34 Rem 
[Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE)] to 1.10 and 0.61 Rem TEDE, 
respectively. However, this is still well within the 10 CFR 50.67 
limits of 25 Rem for the LPZ and EAB. Regarding the [main control 
room (MCR)], the increase in drawdown time has very little effect on 
dose to the MCR operators. Since the HNP MCR is located within the 
turbine building, MCR doses are due primarily to [main steam 
isolation valve (MSIV)] leakage which goes to the main condenser and 
subsequently leaks into the turbine building. Finally, the dose to 
the [Technical Support Center (TSC)] decreased from 3.9 Rem TEDE to 
3.1 Rem TEDE. This is due to the reduction in the assumed unfiltered 
in-leakage to the TSC. Currently, 10,000 cfm is assumed for the TSC 
leakage. The new calculation assumed a more realistic value of 1000 
cfm.
    Therefore, the change in the drawdown time does not represent a 
significant increase in the consequences of a previously analyzed 
event.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This Technical Specifications revision request increases the 
allowed time given the [Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS)] to 
drawdown the secondary containment to 0.20 inches of water vacuum 
from 120 seconds to 10 minutes. No physical modifications are being 
made to the secondary containment system or to the SGTS as a result 
of this Tech Spec amendment request. Additionally, other than the 
increase in the allowed drawdown time to 10 minutes, no changes are 
being made to the function or operation of the secondary 
containment. Therefore, its design function of containing fission 
products released after design basis accidents, such as [loss of 
coolant accident] LOCA, remains unchanged. Likewise, no changes are 
being proposed to the function or operation of the SGTS. It remains 
capable of adequately accomplishing its design function of 
processing the post accident atmosphere in the secondary 
containment.
    Since no new modes of operation are created, no new accident 
initiators are created by this amendment request.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margins are applied at several levels with respect to the 
secondary containment safety function and to other functions 
intended to reduce off-site and on-site dose consequences. One is 
the control room unfiltered in-leakage rate, which is reduced from 
115 cfm to 39 cfm for this analysis. However, results for the last 
MCR in-leakage test were actually far below 39 cfm. In fact, the in-
leakage rate tests for the pressurization mode of the Main Control 
Room Environmental Control system, performed in April of 2015, 
indicated rates between 8 and 12 scfm, roughly one third of the 
assumed in-leakage value. Therefore, although the margin was 
reduced, a significant amount of margin remains. In-leakage to the 
Technical Support Center was assumed at 1000 cfm for this 
calculation. Currently, 10,000 cfm is the assumed in-leakage. 
Therefore margin is reduced with respect to this parameter. However, 
10,000 cfm is an extremely high, unrealistic value. The 1000 cfm in-
leakage assumed for this calculation is a reasonable and justifiable 
value, in fact equal to twice the filtered intake rate. The MSIV 
leakage rate is assumed at the TS value of 100 scfh, unchanged from 
the current analysis. As mentioned in the Technical Evaluation 
section of this submittal, the Volume Correction Factor (VCF) which 
is a parameter representing control room dose immersion, is assumed 
at 0.47 as opposed to the current evaluation which assumes a VCF of 
0.50. The actual number is, in fact, 0.47, but was previously 
rounded up conservatively. Therefore, this margin is being 
eliminated in the current calculation. However, this does not 
represent a significant reduction in the margin of safety because 
margin exists in other areas, namely the Control Room in-leakage, 
TSC in-leakage, and Main Steam Isolation Valve leakage, as discussed 
above. As described in the Technical Evaluation portion of this 
submittal, the margins to the 10 CFR 50.67 main control room and 
offsite dose limits are not significantly reduced. The total MCR 
doses are virtually unchanged. The off-site doses do increase, but 
the resultant doses are still a small fraction (< 5%) of the 
regulatory limit of 25 Rem to the Low Population Zone and 25 Rem to 
the Exclusion Area Boundary. The doses to the TSC actually decrease 
from those of the current analysis; the decrease is due to the 
reduced in-leakage assumption, as previously mentioned.
    For all the reasons provided above, this amendment does not 
represent a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

[[Page 73241]]

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: October 1, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15274A540.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to 
revise the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 plant-specific emergency planning 
inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) in 
Appendix C of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 COLs. Changes to the plant-
specific emergency planning ITAAC are proposed to remove the copies of 
Design Control Document (DCD) Table 7.5-1, ``Post-Accident Monitoring 
System,'' and Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Table 7.5-201, 
``Post-Accident Monitoring System,'' and to replace the references to 
DCD Table 7.5-1 and FSAR Table 7.5-201 with Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 7.5-1 in Table C.3.8-1 for ITAAC Numbers 
C.3.8.01.01.01, C.3.8.01.05.01.05, and C.3.8.01.05.02.04.
    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 [Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station] VCSNS Units 2 and 3 
emergency planning inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance 
criteria (ITAAC) provide assurance that the facility has been 
constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the 
provisions of the Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations. 
The proposed changes to remove the copies of [Design Control 
Document] DCD Table 7.5-1 and [Final Safety Analysis Report] FSAR 
Table 7.5-201 from Appendix C of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 [combined 
license] COLs do not affect the design of a system, structure, or 
component (SSC) used to meet the design bases of the nuclear plant. 
Nor do the changes affect the construction or operation of the 
nuclear plant itself, so there is no change to the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Removing the 
copies of the tables from Appendix C of the COLs does not affect 
prevention and mitigation of abnormal events (e.g., accidents, 
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine 
missiles) or their safety or design analyses. No safety-related SSC 
or function is adversely affected. The changes do not involve nor 
interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of 
events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in 
the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. 
Because the changes do not involve any safety-related SSC or 
function used to mitigate an accident, 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 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 emergency planning ITAAC provide 
assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be 
operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, 
and the Commission's rules and regulations. The changes do not 
affect the design of an SSC used to meet the design bases of the 
nuclear plant, nor do the changes affect the construction or 
operation of the nuclear plant. Consequently, there is no new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
The changes do not affect safety-related equipment, nor do they 
affect equipment which, if it failed, could initiate an accident or 
a failure of a fission product barrier. In addition, the changes do 
not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events 
that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.
    No analysis is adversely affected. No system or design function 
or equipment qualification is adversely affected by the changes. 
This activity will not allow for a new fission product release path, 
result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, nor create a 
new sequence of events that would result in significant fuel 
cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The VCSNS Units 2 and 3 emergency planning ITAAC provide 
assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be 
operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, 
and the Commission's rules and regulations. The changes do not 
affect the assessments or the plant itself. The changes do not 
adversely interface with safety-related equipment or fission product 
barriers. No safety analysis, design basis limit or acceptance 
criterion are challenged or exceeded by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: September 29, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS Accession No. ML15275A089.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to revise 
the Technical Specifications to adopt Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF)-523. ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas 
Accumulation.''
    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 revises or adds Surveillance Requirement(s) 
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS), the Reactor Cooling System (RCS), Residual Heat 
Removal (RHR) and Reactor Building (RB) Spray System are not 
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances 
which permit performance of the revised verification. Gas 
accumulation in the subject systems is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems continue to be capable 
to perform their assumed safety function and are not rendered 
inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, RCS, RHR and RB Spray System are not 
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances 
which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed 
change does 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

[[Page 73242]]

plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose 
any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. 
The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, RCS, RHR and RB Spray System are not 
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances 
which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed 
change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to 
ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their assumed 
safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive than the 
current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the safety 
analysis are protected. The proposed change does not adversely 
affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the 
equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no 
changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits 
or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant 
safety as a result of the proposed change.
    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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, SC 29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15295A091.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to 
revise Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' of the VCSNS Units 2 
and 3 COL, Appendix A, Technical Specifications, to change the title of 
``Shift Supervisor,'' to ``Shift Manager.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications regarding 
the Shift Supervisor to Shift Manager title are administrative 
changes. It has no impact on accident initiators or plant equipment 
and thus does not affect the probability or consequences of an 
accident.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a change to the design of 
the physical plant or operations. This is an administrative title 
change that does not contribute to accident initiation. Therefore, 
it does not produce a new accident scenario or produce a new type of 
equipment malfunction.
    2. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Since the change is administrative and changes no previously 
evaluated accidents or creates no possibility for any new 
unevaluated accidents to occur, there is no reduction in the margin 
of safety. This change also does not affect plant equipment or 
operation and therefore does not affect safety limits or limiting 
safety systems settings.

    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. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
    Date of amendment request: September 23, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15273A156.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
diesel generator (DG) full load rejection test and endurance and margin 
test specified by Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating 
Current] Sources--Operating,'' Surveillance Requirements (SR) 3.8.1.10 
and 3.8.1.14, respectively. The proposed change would add a new Note to 
SR 3.8.1.10 and SR 3.8.1.14, consistent with Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-276-A, Revision 2, ``Revise DG full 
load rejection test.'' The Note allows the full load rejection test and 
endurance and margin test be performed at the specified power factor 
(PF) with clarifications addressing situations when the power factor 
cannot be achieved.
    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.
    Performing [an] SR that tests the DG is not a precursor of any 
accident previously evaluated. These changes only affect 
surveillance testing of mitigative equipment and, therefore, do not 
have an impact on the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Relaxing the requirement to maintain PF when paralleled to 
offsite power does not affect performance of the DG under accident 
conditions. The performance of the surveillances ensures that 
mitigative equipment is capable of performing its intended function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
The systems, structures, and components previously required for the 
mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their 
intended design functions. The proposed changes have no adverse 
effects on a safety-related system or component and do not challenge 
the performance or integrity of safety related systems. As such, it 
does not introduce a mechanism for initiating a new or different 
accident than those described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety. The margin of safety is related to the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design safety 
functions during and

[[Page 73243]]

following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and containment. The proposed 
changes to the testing requirements for the plant DGs do not affect 
the OPERABILITY requirements for the DGs, as verification of such 
OPERABILITY will continue to be performed as required. Continued 
verification of OPERABILITY supports the capability of the DGs to 
perform their required function of providing emergency power to 
plant equipment that supports or constitutes the fission product 
barriers. Only one DG is tested at a time and the remaining DG will 
be available to safely shut down the plant or respond to a design 
basis accident, if required. Consequently, the performance of these 
fission product barriers will not be impacted by implementation of 
the proposed amendment.
    In addition, the proposed changes involve no changes to safety 
setpoints or limits established or assumed by the accident analysis. 
On this and the above basis, no safety margins will be impacted.
    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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 
and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commissions 
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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 5, July 20, and August 27, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to 
a licensee controlled program with the adoption of Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate 
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control-[Risk-Informed Technical 
Specification Task Force (RITSTF)] Initiative 5b.'' Additionally, the 
amendment added a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program, to TS Section 6, Administrative Controls.
    Date of issuance: October 29, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 324. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15280A242; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR 
23601). The supplemental letters dated June 5, July 20, and August 27, 
2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 29, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal 
River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: November 7, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 30, 2015, and October 5, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: By Order dated May 29, 2015, as 
published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2015 (80 FR 32416), the 
NRC approved a direct license transfer for Facility Operating License 
No. DPR-72 for the CR-3. This amendment reflects the direct transfer of 
the ownership held by eight minority co-owners in CR-3 to DEF. The 
transfer of ownership will take place pursuant to the Settlement, 
Release and Acquisition Agreement, dated September 26, 2014, wherein 
DEF will purchase the 6.52 percent combined ownership share in CR-3 
held by these minority co-owners, leaving DEF and Seminole Electric 
Cooperative, Inc. as the remaining licensees for CR-3.
    Date of issuance: October 30, 2015
    Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be 
implemented within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version of the amendment 
and the Order are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15191A179 and 
ML15121A570, respectively; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the Order dated May 29, 
2015. Subsequent to the issuance of the order, the licensee submitted a 
letter dated October 5, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15280A474). This 
letter provided insurance documentation and the closing transaction 
date, as was required by the Order.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR 
23612). The supplements dated April 30, 2015, and October 5, 2015, 
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.

[[Page 73244]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois Docket Nos. STN 
50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, 
Illinois

    Date of amendment request: October 16, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 27, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments permit utilization 
of WCAP-16143-P, Revision 1, ``Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Vessel 
Flange Requirements Evaluation for Byron/Braidwood Units 1 and 2,'' 
dated October 2014, as an analytical method to determine the reactor 
coolant system pressure and temperature limits.
    Date of issuance: October 28, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 186, 186, 192, and 192. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15232A441; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72. NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revised the Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11494). The supplemental letter dated May 27, 2015, contained 
clarifying information and did not change the scope of the proposed 
action or affect the NRC staff's initial 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 28, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: July 24, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 9, April 23, June 24, July 9, July 20, and 
September 8, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment incorporated revised 
reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure-temperature limits in the 
technical specifications (TS) applicable to 55 effective full power 
years. The change will also provide new overpressure protection 
setpoints and lower the RCS temperature at which the TS is applicable.
    Date of issuance: November 2, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by March 2, 2017.
    Amendment No.: 151. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15096A255; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58822). The supplemental letters dated March 9, April 23, June 24, 
July 9, July 20, and September 8, 2015, 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 November 2, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 (VCSNS), Fairfield 
County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: October 23, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment is to Combined 
License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. The amendment 
consists of changes to Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3 due to administrative 
changes in the description and scope of the Initial Test Program in the 
UFSAR to the Facility Combined Licenses. Because the amendment changes 
Tier 2 information to conform to the associated amendment requested 
Tier 1 changes that constitute a departure from the AP1000 certified 
design, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company requested a permanent 
exemption pursuant to 10 CFR, Part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B, 
``Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design, Scope and 
Contents.'' The exemption allows a departure from certain Tier 1 
information in the generic AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD). 
Specifically, the exemption changes the plant-specific AP1000 DCD Tier 
1 information, as specified in LAR 14-08, which are the administrative 
description and scope of the plant-specific UFSAR, Tier 1, Section 3.4, 
``Initial Test Program.''
    Date of issuance: September 9, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 32. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15195A518 documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 9, 2014 (79 FR 
73112).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 2, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 12, 2015; May 4, 2015; and August 28, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the SSES, 
Units 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the SSES CSP Implementation 
Schedule. The amendments also modified the existing Renewed Facility 
Operating License Condition 2.D related to implementing and maintaining 
in effect all provisions of a Commission-approved CSP.
    This license amendment request was submitted by PPL Susquehanna, 
LLC; however, on June 1, 2015, the NRC staff issued an amendment 
changing the name on the SSES license from PPL Susquehanna, LLC to 
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (ADAMS Accession No. ML15054A066). These 
amendments were issued subsequent to an order issued on April 10, 2015, 
to SSES, approving an indirect license transfer of the SSES license to 
Talen Energy Corporation (ADAMS Accession No. ML15058A073).
    Date of issuance: November 2, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 264 (Unit 1) and 245 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession

[[Page 73245]]

No. ML15267A381; 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: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 
38776). The supplemental letter dated August 28, 2015, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 2, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 16, November 22, and December 20, 2013; January 10, 
January 14, February 13, March 14, May 30, June 13, July 10, August 14, 
August 26, August 29, September 16, October 6, and December 17, 2014; 
March 26, April 9, June 19, August 18, September 8, and October 20, 
2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments modified the Renewed 
Facility Operating Licenses (RFOLs) and Technical Specifications (TSs) 
to each unit to incorporate a new fire protection licensing basis in 
accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.48(c). The amendments authorize the 
transition of each unit's fire protection program to a risk-informed 
and performance-based program based on the 2001 Edition of National 
Fire Protection Association Standard 805, ``Performance-Based Standard 
for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating 
Plants.'' This standard describes how to use performance-based methods, 
such as fire modeling and risk-informed methods, to demonstrate 
compliance with nuclear safety performance criteria.
    Date of issuance: October 28, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented in 
accordance with the schedule incorporated in the new fire protection 
license condition of each unit.
    Amendment Nos.: 290 (Unit 1), 315 (Unit 2), and 273 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15212A796; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    RFOL Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: Amendments revised the RFOLs 
and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 13, 2013 (78 FR 
49302). The supplemental letters dated May 16, November 22, and 
December 20, 2013; January 10, January 14, February 13, March 14, May 
30, June 13, July 10, August 14, August 26, August 29, September 16, 
October 6, and December 17, 2014; March 26, April 9, June 19, August 
18, September 8, and October 20, 2015, provided additional information 
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the 
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 28, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: March 12, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification requirements to address NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, 
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' as described in Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, 
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
    Date of issuance: October 28, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 213. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15258A510; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment 
revised the Operating License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR 
32630).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 28, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of November 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-29696 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P