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
https://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
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section 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
https://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 https://
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 https://
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 https://
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 https://
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 https://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 https://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 https://
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 https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, in some
instances, a request to intervene will
require including information on local
residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the
proceeding. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to
these license amendment applications,
see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
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 https://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 https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 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 https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North,
[[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
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
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