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
https://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
https://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
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–
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 https://
www.regulations.gov, as well as entering
the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS.
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 https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed
within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will
rule on the request and/or petition; and
the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also set forth the specific
contentions which the requestor/
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 https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC’s public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
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 https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
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 https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, in some
instances, a request to intervene will
require including information on local
residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the
proceeding. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to
these license amendment applications,
see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
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 https://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 https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0059, 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 https://www.regulations.gov, as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
[[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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 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
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
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