Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 2915-2923 [2016-00686]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices Title: Identification Card Request OMB number: 3095–0057 Agency form number: NA Form 6006 Type of review: Regular Affected public: Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit, Federal government Estimated number of respondents: 1,500 Estimated time per response: 3 minutes Frequency of response: On occasion Estimated total annual burden hours: 75 hours Abstract: The collection of information is necessary as to comply with HSPD–12 requirements. Use of the form is authorized by 44 U.S.C 2104. At the NARA College Park facility, individuals receive a proximity card with the identification badge that is electronically coded to permit access to secure zones ranging from a general nominal level to stricter access levels for classified records zones. The proximity card system is part of the security management system that meets the accreditation standards of the Government intelligence agencies for storage of classified information and serves to comply with E.O. 12958. Dated: January 12, 2016. Swarnali Haldar, Executive for Information Services/CIO. [FR Doc. 2016–00925 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515–01–P NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Sunshine Act Meeting 10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 21, 2016. PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314–3428. STATUS: Open. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion Reporting Structure. 2. NCUA’s 2017–2021 Strategic Plan. 3. Overhead Transfer Rate Methodology. 4. Federal Credit Union Operating Fee Methodology. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. TIME AND DATE: 11:45 a.m., Thursday, January 21, 2016. PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428. STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES TIME AND DATE: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 1. Briefing on Supervisory Matter. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B), and (9)(ii). 2. Personnel. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (2), and (6). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703–518–6304. Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2016–00986 Filed 1–14–16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7535–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2915 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [NRC–2016–0005] I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– 0005 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this action by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2016–0005. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. AGENCY: 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 December 22, 2015, to January 4, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on January 5, 2016. DATES: Comments must be filed by February 18, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed March 21, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2016–0005. 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: SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2016– 0005, 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 http:// www.regulations.gov, as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 2916 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 § 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, (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 60day 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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/ PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 crossexamination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC 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 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 March 21, 2016. 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 § 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, Federallyrecognized 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 March 21, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 EFiling process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ which is available on the agency’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 Webbased submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC’s public Web PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2917 site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 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, E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 2918 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices 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 firstclass 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 http:// 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS), Beaver County, Pennsylvania FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (DBNPS), Ottawa County, Ohio Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15323A138. Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the BVPS and DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the proposed license amendment would revise TS 5.3.1, ‘‘Unit Staff Qualifications,’’ by incorporating an exception to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N18.1–1971, ‘‘Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.’’ This would require licensed operators to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR part 55, ‘‘Operators’ Licenses,’’ in lieu of the ANSI standard. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, along with NRC edits in square brackets: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed license amendment is a change to the administrative section of the BVPS and DBNPS TS. The NRC has determined that accredited training programs based upon the systems approach to training (SAT) are acceptable for satisfying regulatory requirements contained in 10 CFR 55. The BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator training programs are Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) National Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited programs based on the SAT. Hence, the BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator training programs satisfy NRC requirements contained in 10 CFR 55. The ability of licensed operators to respond to and mitigate accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes. The proposed changes do not impact the design, operation, or maintenance of any plant system, structure, or component at either BVPS or DBNPS. Based on the above, FENOC [FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company] concludes that 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 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment involves changes to the BVPS and DBNPS TS that aligns the TS with 10 CFR 55. 10 CFR 55 permits the use of INPO accredited licensed operator training programs to meet regulatory requirements. The BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator training programs are accredited, therefore, the NRC requirements are satisfied. The ability of licensed operators to respond to and mitigate accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes. The proposed changes do not impact the design, operation, or maintenance of any plant system, structure, or component at either BVPS or DBNPS. Based on the above discussion, FENOC concludes that 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 TS changes are administrative in nature. The proposed changes do no impact the design, operation, or maintenance of any plant system, structure, or component at either BVPS or DBNPS. The ability of licensed operators to respond and mitigate accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A–GO–15, Akron, OH 44308. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15328A469. Description of amendment request: The proposed changes are consistent with the NRC -approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control—RITSTF [Risk Informed Technical Specification Task Force] Initiative 5b.’’ The proposed change relocates surveillance frequencies to a licensee controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has affirmed the applicability of the model proposed no significant hazards consideration published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The findings presented in that evaluation are 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 relocate the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements (SRs) to licensee control under a new SFCP. 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] (TSs) for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the SRs, 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. 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 changes. 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. Consequently, 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 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 TSs), 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, I&M will perform a VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04–10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the TS SFCP. 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 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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 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 9, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15282A309. Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved, is to change the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Tier 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, with new plant-specific Emergency Action Levels (EALs) and License Conditions 2.D(12)(c), relating to initial EALs. 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, including the modification of VCSNS Units 2&3 License Conditions and submittal of the new plantspecific EALs for both units, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2919 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, including the modification of VCSNS Units 2&3 License Conditions and submittal of the new plantspecific EALs for both units, do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed 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 changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are not initiators of any accidents. 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. 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, including the modification of VCSNS Units 2&3 License Conditions and submittal of the new plant-specific EALs for both units, do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. 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 proposed 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 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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20004–2514. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart. E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 2920 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices 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 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Date of amendment request: October 21, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15295A090. Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved, to depart from certified AP1000 DCD Tier 1 information and from the plantspecific Tier 2 and Tier 2* information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, by modifying the overall design of the Central Chilled Water subsystem to relocate the Air Cooled Chiller Pump 3 (VWS–MP–03) and associated equipment from the Auxiliary Building to the Annex Building, for each unit respectively. The proposed changes include information in the combined license, Appendix C. An exemption request relating to the proposed changes to the AP1000 DCD Tier 1 is included with the request. 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 Central Chilled Water System (VWS) performs the nonsafety-related function of supplying chilled water to the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. The only safety-related function of the VWS is to provide isolation of the VWS lines penetrating the containment. The low capacity VWS is non-seismically designed. The change to relocate an air cooled chiller pump and associated equipment and add a chemical feed tank to this pump does not adversely affect the capability of either low capacity VWS subsystem loop to perform the system design function. This change does not have an adverse impact on the response to anticipated transient or postulated accident conditions because the low capacity VWS is a nonsafety-related and non-seismic system. No safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is involved with or affected by this change. The changes to the low capacity VWS subsystem do not involve an interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. The proposed VWS change does not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 accidents evaluated in the UFSAR 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 nonsafetyrelated low capacity VWS subsystem do not affect any safety-related equipment, nor do they add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety-related equipment. 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 VWS is a nonsafety-related system that performs the defense-in-depth function of providing a reliable source of chilled water to various HVAC subsystems and unit coolers and the safety-related function of providing isolation of the VWS lines penetrating the containment. The changes to the VWS do not affect the VWS containment penetrations or any other safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. The requested changes will not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20004–2514. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart. 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: November 4, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15308A595. This accession number is corrected in this notice. Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved, to PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. 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). The accession number associated with this amendment request and previous sentence are the subject of this correction. 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 nonsafetyrelated 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 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices 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. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20004–2514. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission’s related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ section of this document. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: November 24, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated January 15, 2015, July 31, 2015, August 17, 2015, and October 23, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specifications to correct nonconservative setpoints. Specifically, the Allowable Value and Nominal Trip Setpoint for the Auxiliary Feedwater Loss of Offsite Power (Function 6.d) are modified. Additionally, the values in the associated Surveillance Requirement 3.3.5.2 would be modified to the same values. As part of the change, the licensee is also proposing to add the applicable footnotes in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force-493, Revision 4, ‘‘Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS Functions.’’ Date of issuance: December 18, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 277 and 273. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15320A333; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 35 and NPF–52: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2921 Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 17085). The supplemental letters dated January 15, 2015, July 31, 2015, August 17, 2015, and October 23, 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 an SE dated December 18, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Date of amendment request: February 13, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated June 22, 2015. Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ‘‘Pressurizer Safety Valves,’’ to modify as-found lift tolerances in the surveillance requirement (SR). The changes to the SR reduce the lift setpoint for valve RC– 201, and increase the allowable asfound setpoint tolerance on valves RC– 200 and RC–201. Date of issuance: December 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented at or before the end of the second refueling outage following issuance. Amendment Nos.: 315 and 293. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15279A191; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42549). The supplemental letter dated June 22, 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 an SE dated December 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 2922 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa Date of amendment request: January 26, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Duane Arnold Energy Center technical specifications (TSs) Section 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,’’ by removing the current stored diesel fuel oil, and lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TS and replacing them with diesel operating time requirements consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–501, Revision 1, ‘‘Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.’’ Date of issuance: December 22, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No.: 292. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15310A082; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–49: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27200). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated December 22, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES South Carolina Electric & 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: June 12, 2014, supplemented by letters dated July 9, October 9, and November 21, 2014 and June 2, 2015. Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a departure from VCSNS Units 2 and 3 plant-specific AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* material contained within the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to correct editorial errors and ensure consistency with the existing UFSAR Tier 1 and Tier 2 information. Date of issuance: November 20, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 37. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS at Accession No. ML15280A438; documents related to this amendment VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 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: September 30, 2014 (79 FR 58812). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2015. The supplemental letters dated July 9, October 9, and November 21, 2014 and June 2, 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. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP), Matagorda County, Texas Date of amendment request: April 23, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the STP Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.5, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube Integrity,’’ Surveillance Requirement 4.4.5.2, Administrative Controls Specification 6.8.3.o, ‘‘Steam Generator Program,’’ and Specification 6.9.1.7, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.’’ These changes are needed to address implementation issues associated with the inspection periods, and address other administrative changes and clarifications. Date of issuance: December 28, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—209; Unit 2—196. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15342A003; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 76 and NPF–80: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35985). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 28, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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: February 17, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated September 25, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Table 3.3.6.1–1, ‘‘Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,’’ of the Technical Specifications (TSs) to correct an inadvertent omission made by Amendment Nos. 251, 290, and 249, for Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively (ADAMS Accession No. ML042730028). Specifically, the revision added the number ‘‘3’’ to indicate Mode 3 for Function 5.g, Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) initiation, to the column titled ‘‘Applicable Modes or Other Specified Conditions.’’ With this inadvertent error corrected, SLCS is required to be operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3. Date of issuance: December 23, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 294 (Unit 1), 319 (Unit 2), and 277 (Unit 3). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15321A472; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30102). The supplemental letter dated September 25, 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 an SE dated December 23, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBNP), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: August 13, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated August 27, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the facility operating license to modify a license condition and add a new license condition to reflect the implementation E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices of the dual-unit Fire Protection Report for the WBNP. Date of issuance: December 23, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to WBNP, Unit 2, entry into Mode 4, ‘‘Hot Shutdown.’’ Amendment No.: 105. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15344A318; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF– 90: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2015 (80 FR 53581). The supplemental letter dated 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 an SE dated December 23, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5), has established a Senior Executive Service PRB. The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive’s performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chairman of the Review Commission regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-forperformance adjustments. Members of the PRB serve for a period of 24 months. In the case of an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career appointees, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(5). The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows: • Nancy P. Bray, Director, Spaceport Integration and Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; • Christine M. Condon, Principal Director, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Resources and Analysis, Office of the Secretary of Defense, DOD; • Gerri Ratliff, Deputy Division Director, National Science Foundation; and • Monica R. Shephard, Vice Director, Joint Force Development. Dated: January 11, 2016. Cynthia L. Attwood, Acting Chairman. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of January 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2016–00913 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2016–00686 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Notice of Submission for Approval: Information Collection 3206–0259; Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Record Request Form, INV 100 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION AGENCY: Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Membership Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. ACTION: Annual notice. AGENCY: Notice is given under 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. DATES: Membership is effective on January 19, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda M. Beard, Human Resources Specialist, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 606–5393. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Review Commission, as required by 5 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 BILLING CODE 7600–01–P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT U.S. Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments. Federal Investigative Services (FIS), U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is notifying the general public and other Federal agencies that OPM is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for renewal of information collection control number 3206–0259, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Record Request Form, INV 100. OPM is soliciting comments for this collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35), as amended by the ClingerCohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106). The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that: 1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2923 for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 21, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d). ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Federal Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Donna McLeod or by electronic mail at FISFormsComments@ opm.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Federal Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Donna McLeod or by electronic mail at FISFormsComments@opm.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Record Request Form, INV 100, is an information collection completed by individuals submitting Freedom of Information (FOIA), Privacy Act, and Amendment record requests to OPM’s Federal Investigative Services (FIS), Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOI/PA) office. OPM’s FIS–FOI/PA office utilizes the optional form INV 100 to standardize collection of data elements specific to the types of record requests. Current record requests can be submitted to FIS–FOI/PA in a format chosen by the requester. Often, requests are missing data elements which require contact with the requester, thereby adding time to the process. Standardization of the data elements collected can assist with enabling FIS– FOI/PA to fulfill FOIA, Privacy Act, and Amendment requests in an efficient manner. E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2915-2923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00686]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0005]


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 December 22, 2015, to January 4, 2016. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 5, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by February 18, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed March 21, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0005. 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0005 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0005.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0005, 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 http://www.regulations.gov, as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit

[[Page 2916]]

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, (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 http://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 
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 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

[[Page 2917]]

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 March 
21, 2016. 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 
March 21, 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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,

[[Page 2918]]

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 
http://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.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS), Beaver 
County, Pennsylvania

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (DBNPS), Ottawa County, 
Ohio

    Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15323A138.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the 
BVPS and DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the 
proposed license amendment would revise TS 5.3.1, ``Unit Staff 
Qualifications,'' by incorporating an exception to American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N18.1-1971, ``Selection and 
Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.'' This would require 
licensed operators to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR part 55, 
``Operators' Licenses,'' in lieu of the ANSI standard.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, along with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed license amendment is a change to the administrative 
section of the BVPS and DBNPS TS. The NRC has determined that 
accredited training programs based upon the systems approach to 
training (SAT) are acceptable for satisfying regulatory requirements 
contained in 10 CFR 55. The BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator 
training programs are Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) 
National Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited programs 
based on the SAT. Hence, the BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator 
training programs satisfy NRC requirements contained in 10 CFR 55. 
The ability of licensed operators to respond to and mitigate 
accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes. The proposed 
changes do not impact the design, operation, or maintenance of any 
plant system, structure, or component at either BVPS or DBNPS.
    Based on the above, FENOC [FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 
Company] concludes that 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 amendment involves changes to the BVPS and DBNPS TS 
that aligns the TS with 10 CFR 55. 10 CFR 55 permits the use of INPO 
accredited licensed operator training programs to meet regulatory 
requirements. The BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator training programs 
are accredited, therefore, the NRC requirements are satisfied. The 
ability of licensed operators to respond to and mitigate accidents 
is unchanged by the proposed TS changes. The proposed changes do not 
impact the design, operation, or maintenance of any plant system, 
structure, or component at either BVPS or DBNPS.
    Based on the above discussion, FENOC concludes that 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 TS changes are administrative in nature. The 
proposed changes do no impact the design, operation, or maintenance 
of any plant system, structure, or component at either BVPS or 
DBNPS. The ability of licensed operators to respond and mitigate 
accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail 
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, 
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15328A469.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes are 
consistent with the NRC -approved Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance 
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed Technical 
Specification Task Force] Initiative 5b.'' The proposed change 
relocates surveillance frequencies to a licensee controlled program, 
the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP).

[[Page 2919]]

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
affirmed the applicability of the model proposed no significant hazards 
consideration published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The findings 
presented in that evaluation are 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 relocate the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements (SRs) to licensee control under a 
new SFCP. 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] 
(TSs) for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still 
required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the SRs, 
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.
    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 
changes. 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.
    Consequently, 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 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 TSs), 
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, I&M will 
perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained 
in NRC approved NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04-10, Rev. 1, in 
accordance with the TS SFCP. 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 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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.

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 9, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15282A309.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved, 
is to change the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Tier 2, Final Safety Analysis 
Report, with new plant-specific Emergency Action Levels (EALs) and 
License Conditions 2.D(12)(c), relating to initial EALs.
    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, including the modification of VCSNS Units 
2&3 License Conditions and submittal of the new plant-specific EALs 
for both units, 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 of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes, including the modification of VCSNS Units 
2&3 License Conditions and submittal of the new plant-specific EALs 
for both units, do not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed 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 changes do not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. The proposed changes are not initiators of any 
accidents.
    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.
    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, including the 
modification of VCSNS Units 2&3 License Conditions and submittal of 
the new plant-specific EALs for both units, do not impact operation 
of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The 
proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The 
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
changes.
    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 proposed 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 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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

[[Page 2920]]

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 21, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15295A090.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved, 
to depart from certified AP1000 DCD Tier 1 information and from the 
plant-specific Tier 2 and Tier 2* information in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, by modifying 
the overall design of the Central Chilled Water subsystem to relocate 
the Air Cooled Chiller Pump 3 (VWS-MP-03) and associated equipment from 
the Auxiliary Building to the Annex Building, for each unit 
respectively. The proposed changes include information in the combined 
license, Appendix C. An exemption request relating to the proposed 
changes to the AP1000 DCD Tier 1 is included with the request.
    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 Central Chilled Water System (VWS) performs the nonsafety-
related function of supplying chilled water to the heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. The only safety-
related function of the VWS is to provide isolation of the VWS lines 
penetrating the containment. The low capacity VWS is non-seismically 
designed.
    The change to relocate an air cooled chiller pump and associated 
equipment and add a chemical feed tank to this pump does not 
adversely affect the capability of either low capacity VWS subsystem 
loop to perform the system design function. This change does not 
have an adverse impact on the response to anticipated transient or 
postulated accident conditions because the low capacity VWS is a 
nonsafety-related and non-seismic system. No safety-related 
structure, system, component (SSC) or function is involved with or 
affected by this change. The changes to the low capacity VWS 
subsystem do not involve an interface with any SSC accident 
initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the 
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific 
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. The 
proposed VWS change does not involve a change to the predicted 
radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, 
the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 nonsafety-related low capacity VWS 
subsystem do not affect any safety-related equipment, nor do they 
add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design 
function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes. 
The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or 
sequence of events that could affect safety-related equipment.
    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 VWS is a nonsafety-related system that performs the defense-
in-depth function of providing a reliable source of chilled water to 
various HVAC subsystems and unit coolers and the safety-related 
function of providing isolation of the VWS lines penetrating the 
containment. The changes to the VWS do not affect the VWS 
containment penetrations or any other safety-related equipment or 
fission product barriers. The requested changes will not affect any 
design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or 
result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 
requested changes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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: November 4, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15308A595. This accession 
number is corrected in this notice.
    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. 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). The accession number associated with this amendment 
request and previous sentence are the subject of this correction.
    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

[[Page 2921]]

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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 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 Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 24, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 15, 2015, July 31, 2015, August 17, 2015, and 
October 23, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specifications to correct non-conservative setpoints. Specifically, the 
Allowable Value and Nominal Trip Setpoint for the Auxiliary Feedwater 
Loss of Offsite Power (Function 6.d) are modified. Additionally, the 
values in the associated Surveillance Requirement 3.3.5.2 would be 
modified to the same values. As part of the change, the licensee is 
also proposing to add the applicable footnotes in accordance with 
Technical Specification Task Force-493, Revision 4, ``Clarify 
Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS Functions.''
    Date of issuance: December 18, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 277 and 273. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15320A333; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 
17085). The supplemental letters dated January 15, 2015, July 31, 2015, 
August 17, 2015, and October 23, 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 an SE dated December 18, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 13, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 22, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``Pressurizer Safety Valves,'' to modify as-
found lift tolerances in the surveillance requirement (SR). The changes 
to the SR reduce the lift setpoint for valve RC-201, and increase the 
allowable as-found setpoint tolerance on valves RC-200 and RC-201.
    Date of issuance: December 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
at or before the end of the second refueling outage following issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 315 and 293. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15279A191; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
42549). The supplemental letter dated June 22, 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 an SE dated December 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 2922]]

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: January 26, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Duane 
Arnold Energy Center technical specifications (TSs) Section 3.8.3, 
``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' by removing the 
current stored diesel fuel oil, and lube oil numerical volume 
requirements from the TS and replacing them with diesel operating time 
requirements consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil 
Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
    Date of issuance: December 22, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 292. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15310A082; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2015 (80 FR 
27200).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated December 22, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric & 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: June 12, 2014, supplemented by letters 
dated July 9, October 9, and November 21, 2014 and June 2, 2015.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a departure from 
VCSNS Units 2 and 3 plant-specific AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) 
Tier 2* material contained within the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report to correct editorial errors and ensure 
consistency with the existing UFSAR Tier 1 and Tier 2 information.
    Date of issuance: November 20, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 37. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS at 
Accession No. ML15280A438; 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: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58812).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2015. The supplemental 
letters dated July 9, October 9, and November 21, 2014 and June 2, 
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.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP), Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: April 23, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the STP 
Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.5, 
``Steam Generator Tube Integrity,'' Surveillance Requirement 4.4.5.2, 
Administrative Controls Specification 6.8.3.o, ``Steam Generator 
Program,'' and Specification 6.9.1.7, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection 
Report.'' These changes are needed to address implementation issues 
associated with the inspection periods, and address other 
administrative changes and clarifications.
    Date of issuance: December 28, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--209; Unit 2--196. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15342A003; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 23, 2015 (80 FR 
35985).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 28, 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: February 17, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 25, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Table 
3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' of the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to correct an inadvertent omission made 
by Amendment Nos. 251, 290, and 249, for Units 1, 2, and 3, 
respectively (ADAMS Accession No. ML042730028). Specifically, the 
revision added the number ``3'' to indicate Mode 3 for Function 5.g, 
Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) initiation, to the column titled 
``Applicable Modes or Other Specified Conditions.'' With this 
inadvertent error corrected, SLCS is required to be operable in Modes 
1, 2, and 3.
    Date of issuance: December 23, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 294 (Unit 1), 319 (Unit 2), and 277 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15321A472; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 
30102). The supplemental letter dated September 25, 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 an SE dated December 23, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant (WBNP), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: August 13, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 27, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the facility 
operating license to modify a license condition and add a new license 
condition to reflect the implementation

[[Page 2923]]

of the dual-unit Fire Protection Report for the WBNP.
    Date of issuance: December 23, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to WBNP, Unit 2, entry into Mode 4, ``Hot Shutdown.''
    Amendment No.: 105. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15344A318; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2015 (80 
FR 53581). The supplemental letter dated 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 an SE dated December 23, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of January 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-00686 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P