Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 17501-17511 [2016-06939]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices being released for public comments. Comments received on the changes proposed in this document will be addressed along with comments received on the draft versions of NUREG–2191 and NUREG–2192. The changes will then be incorporated into the final versions of NUREG–2191 and NUREG–2192. The topical areas addressed in this supplement to the publically-available GALL–SLR Report and SRP–SLR are as follows: (A) selective leaching of ductile iron; (B) cracking due to stress corrosion cracking and intergranular stress corrosion cracking; (C) changes to further evaluation, aging management program (AMP) XI.M29, ‘‘Aboveground Metallic Tanks,’’ AMP XI.M36, ‘‘External Surfaces Monitoring of Mechanical Components,’’ and aging management review (AMR) line items to address cracking and loss of material for aluminum and stainless steel components; (D) a new title for AMP XI.M29; (E) issuance of LR–ISG–2015– 01, ‘‘Changes to Buried and Underground Piping and Tank Recommendations;’’ (F) minor technical and editorial changes to AMR line items and AMPs; and (G) response to certain initial comments from the industry as presented at a public meeting on January 21, 2016. III. Backfitting and Issue Finality This supplement contains guidance on one acceptable approach for managing the associated aging effects during subsequent periods of extended operation for components within the scope of subsequent license renewal. Issuance of this supplemental guidance does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), and the NRC staff did not prepare a backfit analysis for issuing this supplement. More information is provided under the ‘‘Backfitting and Issue Finality’’ section of the supplemental guidance. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March, 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dennis C. Morey, Chief, Aging Management of Reactor Systems Branch, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2016–07052 Filed 3–28–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments [NRC–2016–0059] 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 March 1, 2016, to March 14, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on March 15, 2016. DATES: Comments must be filed by April 28, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 31, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2016–0059. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1262, email: Sandra.Figueroa@nrc.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17501 A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– 0059 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this action by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2016–0059. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2016– 0059, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http:// www.regulations.gov, as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit 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. E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 17502 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC’s PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC’s regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC’s Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/ 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 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 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 E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ which is available on the agency’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC’s online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17503 Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC’s Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/ petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically using the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 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 E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 17504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC’s electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http:// ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ section of this document. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: December 21, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16004A249. Description of amendment request: This amendment request would adopt the approved changes to the standard technical specifications for General Electric Plants Boiling Water Reactor (BWR/4) per NUREG–1433, Revision 4, to allow relocation of specific technical specification (TS) surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The proposed changes are described in Technical Specification VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control— RITSTF Initiative 5b’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642), and are described in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF Traveler, TSTF–425. The proposed changes relocate surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). This change is applicable to licensees using probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04–10, ‘‘Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 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 TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Duke Energy will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04–10, Revision 1, in accordance with the TS 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 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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF), Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16043A424. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the JAF Emergency Plan to reduce the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) positions that the licensee considers unnecessary to effectively respond to credible accidents following permanent defueling. The proposed amendment would not be effective until the certification of permanent cessation of operation and certification of permanent removal of fuel from the E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES reactor vessel are submitted to the NRC. The licensee has provided a formal notification to the NRC of the intention to permanently cease power operations of JAF at the end of the current operating cycle. Once certifications for permanent cessation of operation and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor are submitted to the NRC, reactor operation is no longer authorized and the spectrum of credible accidents at the facility will be reduced. The licensee states that certain on-shift positions for the ERO that are needed during normal reactor operation will no longer be necessary to protect the public health and safety from the risks associated with spent fuel storage and decommissioning activities. 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 JAF Emergency Plan do not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not prevent the ability of the onshift staff and ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition. The proposed changes only remove positions that will no longer be credited in the JAF Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled condition. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and ERO positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do not involve installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new accident initiators are created. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 Response: No. Margin of safety is associated with confidence in 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 are associated with the JAF Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change does 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. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed changes. The revised JAF Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary response staff with the proposed 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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601. NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Date of amendment request: February 3, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A542. Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.2, for each facility, to provide an allowance for brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment access doors during normal entry and exit conditions. 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: PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17505 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change allows temporary conditions during which secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed change are no different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing 4-hour Completion Time for an inoperable secondary containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change allows temporary conditions during which secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment access door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening and closing of redundant secondary containment access doors during normal entry and exit conditions does not affect the ability of the Standby Gas Treatment system to establish the required secondary containment vacuum. Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 17506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555. Acting NRC Branch Chief: Justin C. Poole. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A015. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant’s Technical Specifications limit for Reactor Coolant System (RCS) gross specific activity with a new limit based upon RCS noble gas specific activity. 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. Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary coolant gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for any accident previously evaluated. The current variable limit on primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The proposed change will limit primary coolant noble gases to concentrations consistent with the accident analyses. The proposed change to the Completion Time has no impact on the consequences of any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident during the extended Completion Time are the same as the consequences of an accident during the Completion Time. 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. The proposed change in specific activity limits does not alter any physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant operating parameter. The change does not create the potential for a new or different kind of accident from any previously calculated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas radioactivity in the primary coolant. The proposed change is consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and will ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the safety analyses. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date of application for amendment: February 9, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16041A115 Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the technical specifications (TS) requirements for limitations on the radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the references for the radioactive material effluent requirements. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, 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. This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g consistent with two changes proposed in [Technical Specification Task Force] TSTF–258–A. The amendment has no effect on the design, testing, or operation of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident initiators and does not PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 impact any safety analysis. The proposed amendment does not impose any new radiological hazards to the plant staff or the public. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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. This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g consistent with two changes proposed in TSTF–258–A. The amendment will not change any equipment, does not require new equipment to be installed, and will not change the way current equipment operates or is maintained. No credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators are created by the proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g consistent with two changes proposed in TSTF–258–A. The amendment has no effect on the design, testing, maintenance, or operation of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed amendment does not affect any safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44308. [Acting] NRC Branch Chief: Justin C. Poole. Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: January 19, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16033A472. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Operating Licenses’ licensing basis to allow elimination of the end-of-cycle moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) surveillance test as supported by NRC-Approved Topical Report CE NPSD–911–A and Amendment 1–A, E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ‘‘Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change in the Technical Specification End-ofCycle Negative MTC Limit,’’ and St. Lucie specific supporting information. This amendment request also proposes to add previously NRC approved Westinghouse PARAGON Topical Report WCAP–16045–P–A, Revision 0, ‘‘Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,’’ to the Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification list of Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) methodologies. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of end-of-cycle (EOC) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) if the beginning-of-cycle (BOC) measurements are within a given tolerance of the design values. MTC is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The EOC MTC value is an important assumption in determining the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The analysis presented in the Topical Report CE NPSD–911–A and Amendment 1–A, with additional justification provided in this amendment request, determined that the EOC MTC will be within design limits if the BOC MTC design values are within a given tolerance of the measured values. Therefore, the EOC MTC will continue to be within design limits and the consequences of accidents will continue to be as previously evaluated. The addition of WCAP–16045–P–A, which has been previously approved by the NRC for licensing applications to TS 6.9.1.11.b, is an administrative change which has no impact on the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance of the design values. Also, a new previously approved methodology is proposed to be included in the TS list of COLR methodologies. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance of the design values. The Topical Report CE NPSD–911–A and Amendment 1–A, with additional justification provided in this amendment request, concluded that the risk of not measuring the EOC MTC is acceptably small provided that the BOC measured values are within a specific tolerance of the design values. Also, WCAP–16045–P–A proposed to be added to TS 6.9.1.11, has been previously approved by the NRC for licensing applications to be used consistent with the approved methodologies. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, Florida 33408–0420. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: January 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16029A476. Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and NPF–92 for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4. The requested amendment proposes to depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Documents (DCD) Tier 2 information (text, tables, and figures) and involved Tier 2* information (as incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) as plant specific DCD information), and also involves a change to the plantspecific Technical Specifications. Specifically, the amendment request proposed changes to the plant-specific AP1000 fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic design, and accident analyses as described in the PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17507 licensing basis documents. The proposed changes are consistent with those generically approved in WCAP– 17524–P–A, Revision 1, ‘‘AP1000 Core Reference Report.’’ Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes will revise the licensing basis documents related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic design, and accident analyses. The UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses describe the analyses of various design basis transients and accidents to demonstrate compliance of the AP1000 design with the acceptance criteria for these events. The acceptance criteria for the various events are based on meeting the relevant regulations, general design criteria, the Standard Review Plan, and are a function of the anticipated frequency of occurrence of the event and potential radiological consequences to the public. As such, each design-basis event is categorized accordingly based on these considerations. As discussed in Section 5.3 of WCAP–17524–P–A Revision 1, the revised accident analyses maintain their plant conditions, and thus their frequency designation and consequence level as previously evaluated. As confirmed in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the revised analyses meet the applicable guidelines in the Standard Review Plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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 will revise the licensing basis documents related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic design, and accident analyses. The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode, fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material release. The proposed changes do not alter the design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard functional capabilities of the equipment. Therefore, this activity does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes will revise the licensing basis documents related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic design, and accident analyses. Safety margins are applied at many levels to the design and licensing basis functions E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 17508 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices and to the controlling values of parameters to account for various uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. UFSAR Subsection 4.1.1 presents the Principle Design Requirements imposed on the fuel and control rod mechanism design to ensure that the performance and safety criteria described in UFSAR Chapter 4 and Chapter 15 are met. The revised fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic design, and accident analyses maintain the same Principle Design Requirements, and further, satisfy the applicable regulations, general design criteria, and Standard Review Plan. The effects of the changes do not result in a significant reduction in margin for any safety function, and were evaluated in the Safety Evaluation Report for WCAP–17524– P–A Revision 1 and found to be acceptable. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD 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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203–2015. Acting NRC Branch Chief: John McKirgan. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 Progress Inc., Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: March 5, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated August 10, 2015, December 17, 2015 and February 1, 2016, respectively. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Robinson Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b and Harris TS 6.9.1.6.2 to adopt the reactor core design methodology report DPC– NE–2005–P–A, ‘‘Thermal-Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology,’’ for application to Robinson and Harris. The approval of the methodology report revision added Appendix H specifically reviewed for Robinson and Appendix I specifically reviewed for Harris, to use at each facility. Date of issuance: March 8, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 148 and 244. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16049A630; documents related to the amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–23 and NPF–63: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46342). The supplemental letters dated August 10, 2015, December 17, 2015, and February 1, 2016, 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. PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated March 8, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date of application for amendment: March 12, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated May 6, 2015. Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the operating license to extend the completion date for full implementation of the DBNPS cyber security plan to December 31, 2017. Date of issuance: March 8, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 290. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15302A075. Documents related to this amendment are listed in the safely evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–3: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License. Date of notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2015 (80 FR 25720). The supplemental letter dated May 6, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated March 8, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment requests: March 10, 2015, as supplemented by a letter dated December 15, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments remove Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.5 related to communication during core alteration and TS 3/4.9.6 related to manipulator crane operability from the TSs and require inclusion of those specifications in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Date of issuance: March 7, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices Amendment Nos.: 230 and 180. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A080; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61483). The supplemental letter dated December 15, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated March 7, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated December 15, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the technical specification (TS) to ensure consistency between the two units in the required actions for inoperability of auxiliary feedwater pumps. Date of Issuance: March 7, 2016. Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 229 (Unit No. 1) and 179 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15356A611; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments revised the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73237). The supplemental letter dated December 15, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo County, California Date of application for amendments: April 16, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Best Estimate Analyzer for the Core OperationsNuclear (BEACON) power distribution monitoring system methodology described in the DCPP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 4.3.2.2, ‘‘Power Distribution,’’ to the method described in the Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse) proprietary topical report (TR) WCAP– 12472–P–A, Addendum 4, ‘‘BEACON Core Monitoring and Operation Support System.’’ The amendments also revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),’’ Section b to replace Westinghouse proprietary TR WCAP– 11596–P–A, ‘‘Qualification of the PHOENIX–P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor Cores,’’ with NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP–16045–P–A, ‘‘Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,’’ and NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP–16045–P–A, Addendum 1–A, ‘‘Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology.’’ Date of issuance: March 6, 2016. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to MODE 4 at the start of Cycle 21 for Unit 1, and for Unit 2 prior to MODE 4 at the start of Cycle 20. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—224; Unit 2—226. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16055A359; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 80 and DPR–82: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses, TSs, and UFSAR. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32628). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17509 April 10, 2015; November 25, 2015; and February 3, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments created new Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.2.1, ‘‘Refueling Operations/Unborated Water Source Isolation Valves,’’ to isolate unborated water sources in Mode 6 (Refueling) and revised the existing TS 3.9.2, ‘‘Refueling Operations/Instrumentation,’’ to support using the Gamma-Metrics post-accident neutron monitors for neutron flux indication during Mode 6. TS 3.9.2 is renumbered as TS 3.9.2.2, and the TS language is reworded to be consistent with the language in NUREG–1431, Revision 4, ‘‘Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants.’’ These amendments also remove the existing requirement for the audible indication of the source range neutron flux monitor in the containment and the control room during Mode 6. Date of issuance: March 7, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 311 (Unit No. 1) and 292 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A087; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30101). The supplemental letters dated November 25, 2015, and February 3, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 4, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments corrected the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit 1, E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 17510 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) and the HNP, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendments correct typographical errors in the HNP, Unit 1, RFOL, and HNP, Unit 2, TS, and add the term STAGGERED TEST BASIS to TS Section 1.1, ‘‘Definitions,’’ of the HNP, Units 1 and 2, TS. Date of issuance: March 7, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 276 and 220. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16043A101; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 57 and NPF–5: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69717). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California Date of amendment request: August 20, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated November 19, 2015, and January 12, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment would revise Appendix 3A of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to more fully reflect the permanently shutdown status of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The revision would include a limited set of exceptions and clarifications to referenced Regulatory Guides to reflect the significantly reduced decay heat loads in the SONGS Units 2 and 3 Spent Fuel Pools and to support corresponding design basis changes and modifications that will allow for the implementation of the ‘‘cold and dark’’ strategy outlined in the SONGS PostShutdown Decommissioning Activities Report. Date of issuance: March 11, 2016. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–233 and Unit 3–226: A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16055A522; documents related to these amendments are listed in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 10 and NPF–15: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69715). The supplemental letters dated November 19, 2015, and January 12, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 11, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia Date of amendment request: January 14, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated February 19, August 19, December 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The licensee requested to adopt the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissionapproved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF– 523, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008– 01, Managing Gas Accumulation’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075), dated February 21, 2013. The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on January 15, 2014 (79 FR 2700), as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). Date of issuance: February 29, 2016. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–287; Unit 2–287. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16042A173; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: The amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: (80 FR 35986, June 23, 2015). The supplemental letters dated February 19, August 19, December 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 29, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License, Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration, and Opportunity for Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances) South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: March 1, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated March 3, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1.2, ‘‘Plant Systems—Emergency Feedwater System,’’ action statement b for two emergency feedwater pumps being inoperable by adding a note to the statement ‘‘be in at least HOT STANDBY within 6 hours’’ that extends this time period to 24 hours. The extended action duration is needed to allow the testing of three auxiliary feedwater flow control valves that was missed during the previous refueling outage. This is a one-time change and expires on March 18, 2016. Date of issuance: March 9, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented immediately. Amendment No.: 203. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16063A090; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–12: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was published in The State, located in Columbia, South Carolina, on March 5 and March 6, 2016. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission’s proposed NSHC determination. E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated March 9, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2016–06939 Filed 3–28–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Collection; Comment Request SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s estimate of the burden of the collection of the information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Title and purpose of information collection: Vocational Report; OMB 3220–0141. Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) provides for payment of disability annuities to qualified employees and widow(ers). The establishment of permanent disability for work in the applicant’s ‘‘regular occupation’’ or for work in any regular employment is prescribed in 20 CFR 220.12 and 220.13 respectively. The RRB utilizes Form G–251, Vocational Report, to obtain an applicant’s work history. This information is used by the RRB to determine the effect of a disability on an applicant’s ability to work. Form G–251 is designed for use with the RRB’s disability benefit application forms and is provided to all applicants for employee disability annuities and to those applicants for a widow(er)’s disability annuity who indicate that they have been employed at some time. Significant changes are proposed to Form G–251 in support of the RRB’s Disability Program Improvement Project to enhance/improve disability case 17511 processing and overall program integrity as recommended by the RRB’s Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. Proposed changes to Form G–251 include the consolidation and revision of existing items that request information about essential job duties performed and any exposure to environmental hazards; the expansion of existing items that provide information regarding an applicant’s physical actions or work activities and the amount of time that they expend on such activities during an average 8 hour work day to include Balancing, Twisting/Turning, Crawling, Gripping/ Holding, Foot Control, and Fine Manipulation; and the addition of new items that request information regarding any permanent working accommodations an employer may have made due to the employee’s disability are also proposed. Other minor changes proposed include revisions to the ‘‘Identifying Information’’ section to add ‘‘Province’’ to the address field for applicants who may live outside the U.S. and to provide for an additional telephone number. Minor non-burden impacting, editorial and formatting changes are also proposed. Completion is required to obtain or retain a benefit. One response is requested of each respondent. ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN Annual responses Form No. G–251 (with assistance) .............................................................................................................. G–251 (without assistance) ......................................................................................................... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Charles Mierzwa, Chief of Information Resources Management. [FR Doc. 2016–07130 Filed 3–28–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–77429; File No. SR–BX– 2016–017] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter XI (Doing Business With the Public), Section 8 (Supervision of Accounts) of the Exchange’s Rulebook March 23, 2016. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 1 15 2 17 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b-4. Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Burden (hours) 5,730 40 270 50 3,820 225 6,000 ........................ Total ...................................................................................................................................... Additional Information or Comments: To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, contact Dana Hickman at (312) 751–4981 or Dana.Hickman@RRB.GOV. Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Charles Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092 or emailed to Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Time (minutes) 4,045 notice is hereby given that on March 14, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XI (Doing Business with the Public), Section 8 (Supervision of Accounts) of the Exchange’s rulebook to remove outdated references to three E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17501-17511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06939]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0059]


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 March 1, 2016, to March 14, 2016. The last 
biweekly notice was published on March 15, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by April 28, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by May 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0059. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email: Sandra.Figueroa@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0059 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0059.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0059, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov, as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit 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.

[[Page 17502]]

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this 
proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated 
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or 
an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to 
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, 
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 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

[[Page 17503]]

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 May 31, 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 
May 31, 2016.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 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

[[Page 17504]]

the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require 
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a 
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16004A249.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request would 
adopt the approved changes to the standard technical specifications for 
General Electric Plants Boiling Water Reactor (BWR/4) per NUREG-1433, 
Revision 4, to allow relocation of specific technical specification 
(TS) surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The 
proposed changes are described in Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance 
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML090850642), and are described in the Notice of 
Availability published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 
31996).
    The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF 
Traveler, TSTF-425. The proposed changes relocate surveillance 
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program (SFCP). This change is applicable to 
licensees using probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical 
Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of 
Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 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 TS), 
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Duke 
Energy will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the 
guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1, in 
accordance with the TS 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 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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF), Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16043A424.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
JAF Emergency Plan to reduce the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) 
positions that the licensee considers unnecessary to effectively 
respond to credible accidents following permanent defueling. The 
proposed amendment would not be effective until the certification of 
permanent cessation of operation and certification of permanent removal 
of fuel from the

[[Page 17505]]

reactor vessel are submitted to the NRC. The licensee has provided a 
formal notification to the NRC of the intention to permanently cease 
power operations of JAF at the end of the current operating cycle. Once 
certifications for permanent cessation of operation and permanent 
removal of fuel from the reactor are submitted to the NRC, reactor 
operation is no longer authorized and the spectrum of credible 
accidents at the facility will be reduced. The licensee states that 
certain on-shift positions for the ERO that are needed during normal 
reactor operation will no longer be necessary to protect the public 
health and safety from the risks associated with spent fuel storage and 
decommissioning activities.
    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 JAF Emergency Plan do not impact the 
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The 
proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or precursors, 
nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not 
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO to perform their 
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or 
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition. 
The proposed changes only remove positions that will no longer be 
credited in the JAF Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled 
condition.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and ERO 
positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a 
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do 
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of 
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are 
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to 
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new 
accident initiators are created.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in 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 are 
associated with the JAF Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The change does 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. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the 
proposed changes. The revised JAF Emergency Plan will continue to 
provide the necessary response staff with the proposed 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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, 
New York 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois
    Date of amendment request: February 3, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A542.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.2, for each facility, to provide 
an allowance for brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant 
secondary containment access doors during normal entry and exit 
conditions.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows temporary conditions during which 
secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The secondary 
containment is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed change are no 
different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the 
existing 4-hour Completion Time for an inoperable secondary 
containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows temporary conditions during which 
secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The allowance for 
both an inner and outer secondary containment access door to be open 
simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety 
function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly 
closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary 
containment boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous 
opening and closing of redundant secondary containment access doors 
during normal entry and exit conditions does not affect the ability 
of the Standby Gas Treatment system to establish the required 
secondary containment vacuum.
    Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is 
not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.

[[Page 17506]]

    Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, 
Illinois 60555.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Justin C. Poole.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
    Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A015.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise R.E. 
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant's Technical Specifications limit for Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) gross specific activity with a new limit based 
upon RCS noble gas specific activity.
    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.
    Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any 
accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary 
coolant gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for 
any accident previously evaluated. The current variable limit on 
primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does 
not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The 
proposed change will limit primary coolant noble gases to 
concentrations consistent with the accident analyses. The proposed 
change to the Completion Time has no impact on the consequences of 
any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident 
during the extended Completion Time are the same as the consequences 
of an accident during the Completion Time. 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.
    The proposed change in specific activity limits does not alter 
any physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant 
operating parameter. The change does not create the potential for a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously calculated.
    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 change revises the limits on noble gas 
radioactivity in the primary coolant. The proposed change is 
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and will 
ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the 
safety analyses.
    Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not 
involve a significant hazards consideration.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, 
Illinois 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
    Date of application for amendment: February 9, 2016. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16041A115
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
technical specifications (TS) requirements for limitations on the 
radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the 
references for the radioactive material effluent requirements.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, 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.
    This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g 
consistent with two changes proposed in [Technical Specification 
Task Force] TSTF-258-A. The amendment has no effect on the design, 
testing, or operation of plant structures, systems, or components. 
The proposed amendment does not affect any accident initiators and 
does not impact any safety analysis. The proposed amendment does not 
impose any new radiological hazards to the plant staff or the 
public.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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.
    This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g 
consistent with two changes proposed in TSTF-258-A. The amendment 
will not change any equipment, does not require new equipment to be 
installed, and will not change the way current equipment operates or 
is maintained. No credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or 
accident initiators are created by the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g 
consistent with two changes proposed in TSTF-258-A. The amendment 
has no effect on the design, testing, maintenance, or operation of 
plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed amendment 
does not affect any safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 
44308.
    [Acting] NRC Branch Chief: Justin C. Poole.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: January 19, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16033A472.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Operating Licenses' licensing basis to allow elimination of the end-of-
cycle moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) surveillance test as 
supported by NRC-Approved Topical Report CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-
A,

[[Page 17507]]

``Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change 
in the Technical Specification End-of-Cycle Negative MTC Limit,'' and 
St. Lucie specific supporting information. This amendment request also 
proposes to add previously NRC approved Westinghouse PARAGON Topical 
Report WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, ``Qualification of the Two-
Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,'' to the Units 1 and 2 Technical 
Specification list of Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) 
methodologies.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of end-of-
cycle (EOC) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) if the 
beginning-of-cycle (BOC) measurements are within a given tolerance 
of the design values. MTC is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
    The EOC MTC value is an important assumption in determining the 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The analysis 
presented in the Topical Report CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-A, 
with additional justification provided in this amendment request, 
determined that the EOC MTC will be within design limits if the BOC 
MTC design values are within a given tolerance of the measured 
values. Therefore, the EOC MTC will continue to be within design 
limits and the consequences of accidents will continue to be as 
previously evaluated.
    The addition of WCAP-16045-P-A, which has been previously 
approved by the NRC for licensing applications to TS 6.9.1.11.b, is 
an administrative change which has no impact on the probability or 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    As a result, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if 
the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance of the design 
values. Also, a new previously approved methodology is proposed to 
be included in the TS list of COLR methodologies. The proposed 
changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if 
the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance of the design 
values. The Topical Report CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-A, with 
additional justification provided in this amendment request, 
concluded that the risk of not measuring the EOC MTC is acceptably 
small provided that the BOC measured values are within a specific 
tolerance of the design values. Also, WCAP-16045-P-A proposed to be 
added to TS 6.9.1.11, has been previously approved by the NRC for 
licensing applications to be used consistent with the approved 
methodologies.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/
JB, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia
    Date of amendment request: January 29, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16029A476.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant Units 3 and 4. The requested amendment proposes to 
depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Documents (DCD) Tier 2 
information (text, tables, and figures) and involved Tier 2* 
information (as incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) as plant specific DCD information), and also involves a 
change to the plant-specific Technical Specifications. Specifically, 
the amendment request proposed changes to the plant-specific AP1000 
fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic design, and 
accident analyses as described in the licensing basis documents. The 
proposed changes are consistent with those generically approved in 
WCAP-17524-P-A, Revision 1, ``AP1000 Core Reference Report.'' Basis for 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will revise the licensing basis documents 
related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic 
design, and accident analyses.
    The UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses describe the analyses of 
various design basis transients and accidents to demonstrate 
compliance of the AP1000 design with the acceptance criteria for 
these events. The acceptance criteria for the various events are 
based on meeting the relevant regulations, general design criteria, 
the Standard Review Plan, and are a function of the anticipated 
frequency of occurrence of the event and potential radiological 
consequences to the public. As such, each design-basis event is 
categorized accordingly based on these considerations. As discussed 
in Section 5.3 of WCAP-17524-P-A Revision 1, the revised accident 
analyses maintain their plant conditions, and thus their frequency 
designation and consequence level as previously evaluated. As 
confirmed in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the revised 
analyses meet the applicable guidelines in the Standard Review Plan.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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 will revise the licensing basis documents 
related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic 
design, and accident analyses.
    The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode, 
fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive 
material release. The proposed changes do not alter the design, 
configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard 
functional capabilities of the equipment.
    Therefore, this activity does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will revise the licensing basis documents 
related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic 
design, and accident analyses.
    Safety margins are applied at many levels to the design and 
licensing basis functions

[[Page 17508]]

and to the controlling values of parameters to account for various 
uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. 
UFSAR Subsection 4.1.1 presents the Principle Design Requirements 
imposed on the fuel and control rod mechanism design to ensure that 
the performance and safety criteria described in UFSAR Chapter 4 and 
Chapter 15 are met. The revised fuel system design, nuclear design, 
thermal hydraulic design, and accident analyses maintain the same 
Principle Design Requirements, and further, satisfy the applicable 
regulations, general design criteria, and Standard Review Plan. The 
effects of the changes do not result in a significant reduction in 
margin for any safety function, and were evaluated in the Safety 
Evaluation Report for WCAP-17524-P-A Revision 1 and found to be 
acceptable.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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 Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina
    Date of amendment request: March 5, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 10, 2015, December 17, 2015 and February 1, 2016, 
respectively.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Robinson 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b and Harris TS 6.9.1.6.2 to adopt 
the reactor core design methodology report DPC-NE-2005-P-A, ``Thermal-
Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology,'' for application to 
Robinson and Harris. The approval of the methodology report revision 
added Appendix H specifically reviewed for Robinson and Appendix I 
specifically reviewed for Harris, to use at each facility.
    Date of issuance: March 8, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 148 and 244. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16049A630; documents related to the 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-23 and NPF-63: The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 
46342). The supplemental letters dated August 10, 2015, December 17, 
2015, and February 1, 2016, 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 March 8, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, 
Ohio
    Date of application for amendment: March 12, 2015, as supplemented 
by letter dated May 6, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the 
operating license to extend the completion date for full implementation 
of the DBNPS cyber security plan to December 31, 2017.
    Date of issuance: March 8, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 290. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15302A075. Documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the safely evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2015 (80 FR 25720). The 
supplemental letter dated May 6, 2015, provided additional information 
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the 
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated March 8, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie 
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment requests: March 10, 2015, as supplemented by a 
letter dated December 15, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments remove Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.9.5 related to communication during core 
alteration and TS 3/4.9.6 related to manipulator crane operability from 
the TSs and require inclusion of those specifications in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of issuance: March 7, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.

[[Page 17509]]

    Amendment Nos.: 230 and 180. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A080; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 
61483). The supplemental letter dated December 15, 2015, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated March 7, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 15, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
technical specification (TS) to ensure consistency between the two 
units in the required actions for inoperability of auxiliary feedwater 
pumps.
    Date of Issuance: March 7, 2016.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 229 (Unit No. 1) and 179 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15356A611; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 
FR 73237). The supplemental letter dated December 15, 2015, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo 
County, California
    Date of application for amendments: April 16, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Best 
Estimate Analyzer for the Core Operations-Nuclear (BEACON) power 
distribution monitoring system methodology described in the DCPP 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 4.3.2.2, ``Power 
Distribution,'' to the method described in the Westinghouse Electric 
Company LLC (Westinghouse) proprietary topical report (TR) WCAP-12472-
P-A, Addendum 4, ``BEACON Core Monitoring and Operation Support 
System.'' The amendments also revised Technical Specification (TS) 
5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' Section b to replace 
Westinghouse proprietary TR WCAP-11596-P-A, ``Qualification of the 
PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor 
Cores,'' with NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP-16045-P-A, 
``Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,'' and 
NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A, 
``Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology.''
    Date of issuance: March 6, 2016.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to MODE 4 at the start of Cycle 21 for Unit 1, and for Unit 2 
prior to MODE 4 at the start of Cycle 20.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--224; Unit 2--226. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16055A359; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses, TSs, and UFSAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR 
32628).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 10, 2015; November 25, 2015; and February 3, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments created new 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.2.1, ``Refueling Operations/Unborated 
Water Source Isolation Valves,'' to isolate unborated water sources in 
Mode 6 (Refueling) and revised the existing TS 3.9.2, ``Refueling 
Operations/Instrumentation,'' to support using the Gamma-Metrics post-
accident neutron monitors for neutron flux indication during Mode 6. TS 
3.9.2 is renumbered as TS 3.9.2.2, and the TS language is reworded to 
be consistent with the language in NUREG-1431, Revision 4, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants.'' These amendments also 
remove the existing requirement for the audible indication of the 
source range neutron flux monitor in the containment and the control 
room during Mode 6.
    Date of issuance: March 7, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 311 (Unit No. 1) and 292 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A087; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 
30101). The supplemental letters dated November 25, 2015, and February 
3, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: August 4, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments corrected the Edwin 
I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit 1,

[[Page 17510]]

Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) and the HNP, Units 1 and 2, 
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendments correct 
typographical errors in the HNP, Unit 1, RFOL, and HNP, Unit 2, TS, and 
add the term STAGGERED TEST BASIS to TS Section 1.1, ``Definitions,'' 
of the HNP, Units 1 and 2, TS.
    Date of issuance: March 7, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 276 and 220. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16043A101; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 
FR 69717).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
County, California
    Date of amendment request: August 20, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 19, 2015, and January 12, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment would 
revise Appendix 3A of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to more 
fully reflect the permanently shutdown status of the San Onofre Nuclear 
Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The revision would include a 
limited set of exceptions and clarifications to referenced Regulatory 
Guides to reflect the significantly reduced decay heat loads in the 
SONGS Units 2 and 3 Spent Fuel Pools and to support corresponding 
design basis changes and modifications that will allow for the 
implementation of the ``cold and dark'' strategy outlined in the SONGS 
Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report.
    Date of issuance: March 11, 2016.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-233 and Unit 3-226: A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16055A522; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 
FR 69715). The supplemental letters dated November 19, 2015, and 
January 12, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 11, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: January 14, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 19, August 19, December 3, 2015 and January 25, 
2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The licensee requested to adopt 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications 
Change Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, 
Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075), dated 
February 21, 2013. The availability of this TS improvement was 
announced in the Federal Register on January 15, 2014 (79 FR 2700), as 
part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
    Date of issuance: February 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-287; Unit 2-287. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16042A173; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: The 
amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: (80 FR 35986, June 23, 
2015). The supplemental letters dated February 19, August 19, December 
3, 2015 and January 25, 2016, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating 
License, Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration, and 
Opportunity for Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
Circumstances)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: March 1, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated March 3, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.7.1.2, ``Plant Systems--Emergency Feedwater 
System,'' action statement b for two emergency feedwater pumps being 
inoperable by adding a note to the statement ``be in at least HOT 
STANDBY within 6 hours'' that extends this time period to 24 hours. The 
extended action duration is needed to allow the testing of three 
auxiliary feedwater flow control valves that was missed during the 
previous refueling outage. This is a one-time change and expires on 
March 18, 2016.
    Date of issuance: March 9, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment No.: 203. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16063A090; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was 
published in The State, located in Columbia, South Carolina, on March 5 
and March 6, 2016. The notice provided an opportunity to submit 
comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination.

[[Page 17511]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and NSHC determination are 
contained in a safety evaluation dated March 9, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-06939 Filed 3-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P