Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 76314-76324 [2015-30680]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76314-76324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30680]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0269]


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.

[[Page 76315]]

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from November 10, 2015, to November 23, 2015. The 
last biweekly notice was published on November 24, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 7, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed February 8, 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-2015-0269. 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: Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email: sandra.figueroa@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0269 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-2015-0269.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in 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-2015-0269, 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.

[[Page 76316]]

    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 
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://

[[Page 76317]]

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 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.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 31, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15218A300.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) to permit the use of Risk-Informed 
Completion Times (RICTs) in accordance with Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-505-A, Revision 1, ``Provide Risk-
Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] 
Initiative 4b.''
    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 permits the use of RICTs provided the 
associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC-
accepted RICT Program. The proposed use of RICTs does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated because the change only affects TS Conditions, Required 
Actions and CTs [Completion Times (CTs)] associated with risk 
informed technical specifications and does not involve changes to 
the plant, its modes of operation, or TS mode applicability. The 
proposed license amendment references regulatory commitments to 
achieve the baseline [probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)] risk 
metrics specified in the NRC model evaluation. The changes proposed 
by regulatory commitments will be

[[Page 76318]]

implemented under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 without the need 
for prior NRC approval. The proposed change does not increase the 
consequences of an accident because the accident mitigation 
functions of the affected systems, structures, or components (SSCs) 
are not changed.
    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 or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the 
associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC-
accepted RICT Program. The proposed use of RICTs does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated because the change only affects TS Conditions, 
Required Actions and CTs associated with risk informed technical 
specifications. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant and does not involve installation of new or 
different kind of equipment. The proposed license amendment 
references regulatory commitments to achieve the baseline PRA risk 
metrics specified in the NRC model evaluation. The changes proposed 
by regulatory commitments will be implemented under the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.59 without the need for prior NRC approval. The 
proposed change does not alter the accident mitigation functions of 
the affected SSCs and does not introduce new or different SSC 
failure modes than already evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the risk 
levels associated with inoperable equipment within the scope of the 
RICT program are assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC 
approved RICT Program. The proposed change implements a risk-
informed Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP) to assure that 
adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new 
specifications and the CRMP considers cumulative effects of multiple 
systems or components being out of service and does so more 
effectively than the current TS. In this regard, the implementation 
of the CRMP is considered an improvement in safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 9, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15293A335.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
emergency action levels from a scheme based on Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) 99-01, Revision 5, ``Methodology for Development of Emergency 
Action Levels,'' to a scheme provided in the subsequent Revision 6 of 
NEI 99-01.
    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 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station (PVNGS) emergency action levels (EALs) do not impact the 
physical function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSC) 
or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The 
proposed changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or 
precursors, nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do 
not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended 
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within 
assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative 
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected 
by the proposed changes.
    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 or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed, modified, or removed) or a change in the method of plant 
operation. The proposed changes will not introduce failure modes 
that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes to the 
PVNGS emergency action levels are not initiators of any accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from accidents previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission 
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of 
radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The changes do not affect the Technical Specifications or the 
operating license. The proposed changes do not involve a change in 
the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be 
affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed changes 
will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will 
not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes 
will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the 
design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems 
that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant 
in a safe shutdown condition. The Emergency Plan will continue to 
activate an emergency response commensurate with the extent of 
degradation of plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: September 1, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15253A205.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.8.b, ``Core Operating Limits 
Report,'' to add Framatome-ANP (AREVA) topical reports EMF-2328(P)(A), 
Supplement 1, ``PWR [pressurized water reactor] Small Break LOCA [loss 
of coolant accident] Evaluation Model, S-RELAP5 Based,'' and EMF-92-
116(P)(A), Supplement 1, ``Generic Mechanical Design Criteria for

[[Page 76319]]

PWR Fuel Designs,'' for referencing as analytical methods used to 
determine MPS2 core operating limits.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to TS 6.9.1 .8.b permit the use of the 
recent supplements to the appropriate methodologies to analyze 
accidents to ensure that the plant continues to meet applicable 
design criteria and safety analysis acceptance criteria. The 
proposed changes to the list of NRC-approved methodologies listed in 
TS 6.9.1.8.b has no impact on plant operation and configuration. The 
list of methodologies in TS 6.9.1.8.b does not impact either the 
initiation of an accident or the mitigation of its consequences.
    The revised [small-break loss-of-coolant accident (SBLOCA)] 
analysis demonstrates [Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2)] 
continues to satisfy the 10 CFR 50.46 ECCS [emergency core cooling 
system] performance acceptance criteria using an NRC-approved 
evaluation model.
    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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no impact on any plant configuration 
or system performance. There is no change to the design function or 
operation of the plant. The proposed changes will not create the 
possibility of a new or different accident due to credible new 
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not 
previously considered. There is no change to the parameters within 
which the plant is normally operated, and thus, the possibility of a 
new or different type of accident is not created.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from those previously 
evaluated within the [final safety analysis report (FSAR)].
    3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no impact on any plant configuration 
or system performance. Approved methodologies will be used to ensure 
that the plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and 
safety analysis acceptance criteria.
    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: August 18, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 29, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15236A265 and ML15272A443, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Technical Specifications 
(TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program with the implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, 
Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies.'' 
Additionally, the change would add a new program, the Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program, to TS Section 6, ``Administrative 
Controls.'' The changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate 
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed 
Technical Specification Task Force] Initiative 5b.''
    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 any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
    As a result, the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any 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. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), 
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Duke 
Energy will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the 
guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1, in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 
04-10, Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance 
guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed 
changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 
1.177.
    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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

[[Page 76320]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 72-8, Calvert Cliffs 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Calvert County, Maryland

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

    Date of amendment request: July 29, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 4, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15210A314 and ML15309A131, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) requalification training 
frequency for the affected facilities.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

    Exelon has evaluated the proposed change to the affected sites' 
Emergency Plans and determined that the change does not involve a 
Significant Hazards Consideration. In support of this determination, 
an evaluation of each of the three (3) standards, set forth in 10 
CFR 50.92, ``Issuance of amendment,'' is provided 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 does not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident. The proposed change does not involve 
the modification of any plant equipment or affect plant operation. 
The proposed change will have no impact on any safety-related 
Structures, Systems, or Components. The proposed change only affects 
the administrative aspects of the annual ERO requalification 
training frequency requirements and not the content of the training.
    The proposed change would revise the ERO requalification 
frequency from an annual basis to once per calendar year not to 
exceed 18 months between training sessions as defined in the Exelon 
Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plans for the affected plants. The 
proposed change would align the Exelon fleet under one standard 
regarding the annual requalification training frequency of personnel 
assigned Exelon ERO positions.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan 
requalification training frequency for the affected sites 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 has no impact on the design, function, or 
operation of any plant systems, structures, or components. The 
proposed change does not affect plant equipment or accident 
analyses. The proposed change only affects the administration 
aspects of the annual emergency response organization 
requalification training frequency requirements. There are no 
changes in the content of the training being proposed. The proposed 
change is to align the Exelon fleet under one standard regarding the 
annual requalification training frequency of personnel assigned 
Exelon ERO positions.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan 
requalification training frequency for the affected sites does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to 
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result 
of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by the 
proposed change to the frequency in the ERO requalification training 
requirements. The proposed change only affects the administrative 
aspects of the annual ERO requalification training frequency 
requirements and does not change the training content.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan 
requalification training frequency for the affected sites 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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Justin C. Poole.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: October 2, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15275A265.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would: 
(1) Revise the allowable test pressure band for the technical 
specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR) pump flow testing of 
the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system and the reactor core 
isolation (RCIC) system; (2) revise the surveillance frequency 
requirements for verifying the sodium pentaborate enrichment of the 
standby liquid control (SLC) system; and (3) delete SRs associated with 
verifying the manual transfer capability of the normal and alternate 
power supplies for certain motor-operated valves associated with the 
suppression pool spray (SPS) and drywell spray (DWS) sub-systems of the 
residual heat removal (RHR) system.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes for testing the HPCI System and the RCIC 
System at a lower pressure value do not affect the ability of the 
systems to perform their design functions. Testing at a lower 
pressure prevents unnecessary reactivity and reactor pressure 
perturbations and is considered to be conservative with respect to 
proving operability of these systems.
    The revision to the SLC system SR 3.1.7.10 and deletion of the 
SPS and DWS sub-system SRs 3.6.2.4.3 and 3.6.2.5.3 do not affect the 
ability of these systems to perform their design functions. These 
proposed changes are administrative in nature and have no effect on 
plant operation.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect plant operations, 
design functions or analyses that verify the capability of systems, 
structures and components to perform their design functions. 
Performances of the involved SRs are not initiators of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

[[Page 76321]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed changes for testing the HPCI System and the RCIC 
System at a lower pressure value do not alter the system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant; 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
    The revision to the SLC system SR 3.1.7.10 and deletion of the 
SPS and DWS sub-system SRs 3.6.2.4.3 and 3.6.2.5.3 are 
administrative in nature and have no effect on plant operation. 
These proposed changes do not alter the physical design, safety 
limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation 
of the plant.
    These proposed changes do not introduce any new accident 
initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the capabilities 
of any plant system, structure, or component to perform their safety 
function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes for testing the HPCI System and the RCIC 
System at a lower pressure value do not affect the ability of the 
systems to perform their design functions. Testing at a lower 
pressure prevents unnecessary reactivity and reactor pressure 
perturbations and is considered to be conservative with respect to 
proving operability of these systems. The revision to the SLC system 
SR 3.1.7.1 O and deletion of the SPS and DWS sub-system SRs 
3.6.2.4.3 and 3.6.2.5.3 are administrative in nature and have no 
effect on plant operation. The HPCI, RCIC, SLC and RHR systems will 
continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of the revised 
and retained SRs. The proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory 
requirements regarding the content of plant TS.
    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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President 
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 4, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15288A549.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved, 
to depart from certified AP1000 Tier 1 information and from the plant-
specific Tier 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
information by reconfiguring the signal processing in the two processor 
cabinets currently planned for the Annex Building and relocating the 
cabinets to the Auxiliary Building. The proposed changes also change 
the hardware and reduce the number of functions of the cabinet as well 
as changing the power supply to one backed by separate diesel 
generators.
    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 design of the diverse actuation 
system (DAS) conform to the DAS fire-induced spurious actuation 
(smart fire) of the squib valves and single point failure criteria. 
The DAS is a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the safety-related 
protection and safety monitoring system (PMS). The proposed changes 
do not involve any accident initiating component/system failure or 
event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated 
are not affected. The affected equipment does not adversely affect 
or interact with safety-related equipment or a radioactive material 
barrier, and this activity does not involve the containment of 
radioactive material. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect 
any safety-related accident mitigating function. The radioactive 
material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses 
are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident analyses are not affected. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not alter the 
performance of the DAS as a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the 
PMS. The new configuration within two independent and separate 
processor cabinets located in the Auxiliary Building do not 
adversely affect any safety-related equipment or function, therefore 
no new accident initiator or failure mode is created. The changes to 
provide independent power supplies to the separate processor 
cabinets do not have any impact on any safety-related equipment or 
function, and no new accident or failure mode is created. The 
proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events 
that could lead to a radioactive release. The changes do not 
adversely affect any safety-related equipment or structure. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not affect any 
safety-related equipment or function. The proposed changes do not 
have any adverse effect on the ability of safety-related structures, 
systems, or components to perform their design basis functions. No 
safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of 
safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 15, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15288A549.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Diverse Actuation System (DAS) control cabinets. 
Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control 
Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the 
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 
52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 76322]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the design of the diverse actuation 
system (DAS) conform to the DAS fire-induced spurious actuation 
(smart fire) of the squib valves and single point failure criteria. 
The DAS is a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the safety-related 
protection and safety monitoring system (PMS). The proposed changes 
do not involve any accident initiation component/system failure or 
event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated 
are not affected. The affected equipment does not adversely affect 
or interact with safety-related equipment or a radioactive material 
barrier, and this activity does not involve the containment of 
radioactive material. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect 
any safety-related accident mitigating function. The radioactive 
material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses 
are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident analyses are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not alter the 
performance of the DAS as a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the 
PMS. The new configuration within two independent and separate 
processor cabinets located in the Auxiliary Building do not 
adversely affect any safety-related equipment or function, therefore 
no new accident initiator or failure mode is created. The changes to 
provide independent power supplies to the separate processor 
cabinets do not have any impact any safety-related equipment or 
function, and no new accident or failure mode is created. The 
proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events 
that could lead to a radioactive release. The changes do not 
adversely affect any safety-related equipment or structure.
    Therefore, the proposed changes 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 changes to the design of the DAS do not affect any 
safety-related equipment or function. The proposed changes do not 
have any adverse effect on the ability of safety-related structures, 
systems, or components to perform their design basis functions. No 
safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.

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.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: July 29, 2014, as supplemented 
by letters dated February 13, April 1, and August 14, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 and approved the request to 
implement 10 CFR 50.61a, ``Alternate fracture toughness requirements 
for protection against pressurized thermal shock events.''
    Date of issuance: November 23, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment No.: 257. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15209A791; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58814). The supplemental letters dated February 13, April 1, and 
August 14, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The 
Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2015, provides the discussion of 
the comments received from Beyond Nuclear.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: November 12, 2014, as 
supplemented by letter dated January 28, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the 
licensee's proposed revisions to information in the Final Safety 
Analysis Report regarding the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) Charpy 
upper-shelf energy (USE) requirements in part 50, ``Domestic Licensing 
of Production and Utilization Facilities,'' appendix G, ``Fracture 
Toughness Requirements,'' IV.A.1. The change updates the analysis for 
satisfying the RPV Charpy USE requirements through the end of the 
renewed operating license.
    Date of issuance: November 23, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance.

[[Page 76323]]

    Amendment No.: 258. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15106A682; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 2015 (80 FR 
523). The supplemental letter dated January 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 NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2015, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 14, September 23, and October 8, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the limiting 
condition for operation of Technical Specification 3.1.3.4 to increase 
the maximum individual control element assembly (CEA) drop time from 
the fully withdrawn position to 90 percent inserted from less than or 
equal to 3.2 seconds to less than or equal to 3.5 seconds and increase 
the maximum arithmetic average of all CEA drop times from less than or 
equal to 3.0 seconds to less than or equal to 3.2 seconds. The licensee 
also proposed to update the Final Safety Analysis Report to account for 
the CEA drop times increase.
    Date of issuance: November 13, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 246. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15289A143; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 8, 2015 (80 
FR 53892). The supplements dated September 23, and October 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 13, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The 
comments received on Amendment No. 246 are addressed in the Safety 
Evaluation dated November 13, 2015.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 17, 2012, January 18, 2013, February 11, 2013, 
October 4, 2013, December 4, 2014, and April 15, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds a new action 
statement to Technical Specification 3.7.3, requiring performance of 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.3.1 once per hour if Core Standby 
Cooling System Pond temperature is >=101 [deg]F, and also modifies the 
temperature limit specified in SR 3.7.3.1 from ``<=101.25 [deg]F'' to 
``within the limits of Figure 3.7.3-1,'' newly added by this amendment.
    Date of issuance: November 19, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 218 and 204. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15202A578; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-11 and NPF-18: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45489). The supplemental letters dated December 4, 2014, and April 15, 
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 19, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of application for amendments: November 13, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] 
Subsystems--Tavg [average temperature] Greater Than or Equal 
to 350 [deg]F [degrees Fahrenheit],'' to correct non-conservative TS 
requirements. The amendments also made editorial changes to the TSs.
    Date of issuance: November 9, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 267 and 262. The amendments are available in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML15294A443; documents related to these amendments 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11478).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in an SE dated November 9, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 25, 2014. A redacted version 
was provided by letter dated April 20, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cyber 
Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8 completion date and the 
physical protection license condition.
    Date of issuance: November 19, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 284. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15294A279; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 
38775).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated November 19, 2015.

[[Page 76324]]

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th 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. 2015-30680 Filed 12-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P