Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 24659-24667 [2016-09543]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24659-24667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09543]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0083]


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 29 to April 11, 2016. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 12, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 26, 2016. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 27, 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-2016-0083. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0083 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-2016-0083.
     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-2016-0083, 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 enter 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 To remove 
such information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this 
proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of

[[Page 24660]]

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 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 June 
27, 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

[[Page 24661]]

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 June 27, 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 at of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require 
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a 
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection

[[Page 24662]]

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.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16015A112.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2. The proposed change eliminates TS 3.7.14, ``Primary Auxiliary 
Building Ventilation (VNPAB),'' in its entirety on the basis that the 
VNPAB is not credited for accident mitigation and meets none of the 
criteria of 10 CFR 50.36 for inclusion in the TS.
    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 change does not impact the physical configuration 
or function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or 
the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses are 
affected by the proposed changes.
    The control room dose analysis for a loss of coolant accident 
using alternate source term (AST) initially credited operation of 
the VNPAB exhaust system. However, the analysis was subsequently 
revised to remove credit for the VNPAB prior to NRC final approval 
of implementation of AST. As a result, NextEra is proposing to 
remove the VNPAB system from the TS. The VNPAB system is not an 
initiator of accidents and does not function to mitigate the 
consequences of DBAs [design-basis accidents].
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for 
existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. 
Additionally, the proposed change does not involve a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation, and all safety functions 
will continue to perform as previously assumed in the accident 
analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the 
design function or operation of any structures, systems, and 
components important to safety.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. 
The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity 
of any safety-related system.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no [effect] 
on the availability, operability, or performance of safety-related 
systems and components. The proposed change will not adversely 
affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment 
assumed in the accident analysis.
    The proposed amendment does not involve changes to any safety 
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system 
settings. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating 
margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety 
analyses.
    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: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: February 12, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16043A217.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
facility operating licenses and the technical specifications (TSs) for 
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The proposed changes to the 
operating licenses, which are administrative in nature, remove license 
conditions that have been completed and are no longer in effect. The 
proposed change to the TSs revise the ventilation filter testing 
program by changing the value for methyl iodide penetration for the 
control room emergency filtration system.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment includes a change to delete license 
conditions that are complete or otherwise obsolete. This change is 
strictly administrative in nature. The proposed amendment also 
revises the charcoal testing criteria in TS 5.5.10, Ventilation 
Filter Testing Program. The proposed changes do not impact the 
physical configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. No actual facility 
equipment or accident analyses are affected by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The 
proposed changes do not create any new failure modes for existing 
equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally, the 
proposed changes do not involve a change in the methods governing 
normal plant operation, and all safety functions will continue to 
perform as previously assumed in the accident analyses. Thus, the 
proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or 
operation of any structures, systems, and components important to 
safety.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
The proposed changes do not challenge the performance or integrity 
of any safety-related system.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is

[[Page 24663]]

unchanged. The proposed changes will have no effect on the 
availability, operability, or performance of safety-related systems 
and components. The proposed change will not adversely affect the 
operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in 
the accident analysis.
    The proposed amendment does not involve changes to any safety 
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system 
settings. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating 
margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety 
analyses.
    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: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P. O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: February 10, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16047A336.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.11, ``Primary Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to increase the containment integrated 
leakage rate test program Test A interval from 10 to 15 years.
    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 amendment involves a permanent change to extend the 
Type A containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) interval from 10 
to 15 years. The proposed extension does not involve either a 
physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the 
plant is operated or maintained. The containment is designed to 
provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled 
release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated 
accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements 
invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment 
exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of 
an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of 
any precursors of an accident.
    The effect of changing the Type A test frequency to once every 
15 years, measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk 
(for accident sequences influenced by Type A testing), is less than 
or equal to the criteria established in [Electric Power Research 
Institute (EPRI)] Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A. Moreover, the 
risk impact for the ILRT extension when compared to other severe 
accident risks is negligible. In addition, as documented in NUREG-
1493, Type B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of 
containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage 
paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The 
MNGP Type A test history supports this conclusion.
    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of 
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, 
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined 
as those which involve degradation due to system and/or component 
modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and 
administrative controls such as configuration management and 
procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that 
containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or 
maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of 
the containment combined with the containment inspections performed 
in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
[Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] Section XI, and TS requirements 
provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not 
degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test.
    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 TS change involves a permanent extension of the 
Type A containment test interval from 10 to 15 years. The 
containment testing requirements which periodically demonstrate the 
integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) nor does the proposed 
change alter the design, configuration, or the manner in which the 
plant is operated or controlled beyond the standard functional 
capabilities of the equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS change involves a permanent extension of the 
Type A containment test interval from 10 to 15 years. The specific 
requirements and conditions of the Primary Containment Leak Rate 
Testing Program exist to ensure that the required degree of 
containment structural integrity and leak-tightness considered in 
the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment 
leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
    The proposed change involves only an extension of the interval 
between Type A test performances for MNGP. Extension of the proposed 
surveillance interval is in accordance with the 15-year ILRT 
Interval determined acceptable by the NRC utilizing the guidance of 
[Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)] 94-01, Revision 2-A. Industry 
experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects 
a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the 
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by 
Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in 
accordance with ASME Section XI, and the TS serve to provide a high 
degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a 
manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of 
these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety 
analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and 
acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests 
specified in applicable codes and standards continue to be met with 
the acceptance of this proposed change because these criteria are 
not affected by the proposed change to the Type A test interval.
    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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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: November 24, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15328A515.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to 
rename, relocate, and add radiation detectors to provide monitoring of 
the radiologically controlled area ventilation system (VAS) exhaust 
from the radiologically controlled areas of the

[[Page 24664]]

auxiliary building and annex building. The amendment proposes changes 
in the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 
information, and departure from certified AP1000 Design Control 
Document (DCD) Tier 1 information. It also requires conforming changes 
to Combined License Appendix C, ``Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 
Acceptance Criteria.'' Because this proposed change requires a 
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 
1000 DCD, the licensee also requested an exemption from the 
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The design functions of the VAS include prevention of the 
unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or 
adjacent plant areas by providing monitoring of the VAS exhaust from 
radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building and annex 
building, and to automatically isolate the selected building areas 
and start the containment air filtration system (VFS) upon detection 
of high radioactivity. The proposed changes to the VAS to relocate 
and add radiation detectors are acceptable as they maintain these 
design functions.
    These proposed changes to the VAS design as described in the 
current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the 
design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect 
the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems 
required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no 
change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated 
accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive 
releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response 
to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not 
adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes described create any 
new accident precursors.
    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 revise the VAS design as described in the 
current licensing basis to enable the system to perform required 
design functions, and are consistent with other UFSAR information. 
The proposed changes do not change the design requirements for the 
system. The relocated and new VAS radiation detectors are designed 
to the same equipment specifications, including required sensitivity 
and range, as the existing radiation detectors. The relocated and 
new VAS radiation detectors monitor the same parameters, as well as 
perform the same design functions, as the existing radiation 
detectors. The proposed changes to the system do not result in a new 
failure mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No 
design function described in the UFSAR is adversely affected by the 
proposed changes. The proposed changes do not result in a new 
failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect 
safety or safety-related equipment. The proposed changes do not 
allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new 
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of 
events that would result in significant fuel cladding failures.
    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.
    The proposed changes do not change the codes or standards for 
the radiation detectors, or functionality of the ductwork in the 
auxiliary building and annex building. The proposed changes have no 
adverse effect on the nonsafety-related system design functions of 
the VAS for the prevention of the unmonitored release of airborne 
radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent plant areas by providing 
monitoring of the VAS exhaust from radiologically controlled areas 
of the auxiliary building and annex building, and to automatically 
isolate the selected building areas and start the VFS upon detection 
of high radioactivity. The proposed changes do not affect safety-
related equipment or equipment whose failure could initiate an 
accident. The proposed changes to relocate and add radiation 
detectors do not adversely interface with safety-related equipment 
or fission product barriers. Therefore, the proposed changes do not 
affect any safety-related equipment, design code, function, design 
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. 
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the requested changes, thus, no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: John McKirgan.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 
52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1, 2, 3, 
and 4, Burke County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 
Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 
Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama, Docket Nos. 50-321 
and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, City of 
Dalton, GA
    Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16071A110.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment requests NRC 
approval for the adoption of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, 
Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive 
Reactors,'' to replace the Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes for 
VEGP, FNP, and HNP that are currently based on Revision 4 of NEI 99-01. 
Additionally, SNC proposes changes to the radiation monitors at FNP.
    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.
    Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed 
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in 
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for 
Non-Passive Reactors,'' do not reduce the capability to meet the 
emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 
CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the 
functionality, performance, or capability of SNC's [emergency 
response organization (ERO)] to respond in mitigating the 
consequences of any design basis accident.
    The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation 
of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the 
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the 
Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, ``Planning Basis,'' of 
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of 
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of 
Nuclear Power Plants:''

    ``. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to 
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for

[[Page 24665]]

a spectrum of accidents * * * No single specific accident sequence 
should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each 
accident could have different consequences, both in nature and 
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning 
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no 
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident 
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst 
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood * * *. 
.''
    Therefore, SNC did not consider the risk insights regarding any 
specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the 
proposed changes.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to 
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any 
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect 
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which 
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components 
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the EAL schemes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    [FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--The proposed changes to the 
[FNP] EALs resulting from the proposed modification of the RE-60 
radiation monitors do not impact the physical function of SSCs or 
the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, 
nor alter design assumptions.
    While the proposed change will alter the design configuration of 
the plant by replacing and relocating radiation monitors RE-60-A, B 
and C and by abandoning RE-60D, the proposed change does not alter 
or prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended 
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within 
assumed acceptance limits. Similarly, while these instruments 
monitor and provide information on the consequences of an accident, 
the radiation monitors perform no safety function that directly 
mitigates the consequences of an accident. Further, no operating 
procedures or administrative controls that function to prevent or 
mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from 
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors 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.
    Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed 
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in 
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant 
systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the 
addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not 
alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant 
equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. All SNC ERO 
functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed 
changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the EAL schemes do not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those 
that have been previously evaluated.
    [FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--The proposed change to the [FNP] 
EALs resulting from the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation 
monitors does not impact the [FNP] accident analysis. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of safety-related SSCs (i.e., 
no new or different type of safety-related SSC will be installed), a 
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. 
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change revises EALs, which 
establish the thresholds for placing the plant in an emergency 
classification. EALs are not initiators of any accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from 
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed 
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in 
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a design basis or 
safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis 
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that 
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed 
changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental 
conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. 
Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt 
the NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue 
to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to SNC's EAL schemes do not 
involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
    [FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--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 change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from the 
proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors does not 
impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or 
accidents. The change does not affect the Technical Specifications 
or the Operating License. The proposed change does not involve a 
change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses 
will be affected by the proposed change.
    Additionally, the proposed change will not relax any criteria 
used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system 
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the Farley EALs resulting from 
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors 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: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of 
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness 
Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

[[Page 24666]]

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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: March 2, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 31, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
specifications (TSs) by (1) aligning the peak calculated primary 
containment internal pressure (Pa) for the design basis loss 
of coolant accident in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the 10 CFR 50 
Appendix, J, Option B definition of Pa, and (2) revising the 
acceptable methods of surveillance for leakage rate testing of the 
containment air lock door seals.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 326. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16068A312; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 
43126). The supplemental letter dated August 31, 2015, provided 
additional information that expanded the scope of the application as 
originally noticed. A notice published in the Federal Register on 
February 22, 2016 (81 FR 8752), superseded the original notice in its 
entirety to reflect the expanded scope of the proposed amendment and 
include the staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan
    Date of amendment request: September 24, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted the note 
associated with Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4 to reflect the 
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system design and ensure the RHR system 
operation is consistent with TS 3.5.1 Limiting Condition for Operation 
requirements.
    Date of issuance: April 5, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 203. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16054A637; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: This amendment revises the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 
FR 73235).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: June 22, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date from June 30, 2016, to 
December 15, 2017.
    Date of issuance: April 6, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 311. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16062A388; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 
46349).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 17, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/4.9.5, 
``Communications,'' and TS 3/4.9.6, ``Manipulator Crane.'' The 
amendments require the licensee to relocate the requirements to the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and related procedures to be 
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and 
experiments.''
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 269 (Unit No. 3) and 264 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16040A373; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 
65813). The supplemental letter dated November 17, 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 29, 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 22, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 14, 2013; February 24, March 25, April 25, July 14, 
August 27, September 10, and October 10, 2014; and March 10, April 1, 
April 20, May 12, August 21, and October 22, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments transition the fire 
protection program to a new risk-informed, performance-based 
alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates by 
reference the National Fire Protection Association

[[Page 24667]]

(NFPA) Standard 805 (NFPA 805), ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire 
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001 
Edition. Copies of NFPA 805 may be purchased from the NFPA Customer 
Service Department, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, 
Massachusetts 02269-9101 and in PDF format through the NFPA Online 
Catalog (https://www.nfpa.org) or by calling 1-800-344-3555 or 617-770-
3000. Copies are also available for inspection at the NRC Library, Two 
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-
2738, and at the NRC PDR, One White Flint North, Room O1-F15, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
as described in the transition license conditions.
    Amendment Nos.: 231 and 181. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15344A346; 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 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 26, 2013 (78 
FR 78407). The supplemental letters dated February 24, March 25, April 
25, July 14, August 27, September 10, and October 10, 2014; and March 
10, April 1, April 20, May 12, August 21, and October 22, 2015, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the 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 31, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: July 24, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs), which currently 
require operation of ventilation systems with charcoal filters for a 
10-hour period at a monthly frequency. The SRs are revised to require 
operation of the systems for 15 continuous minutes at a monthly 
frequency.
    Date of issuance: April 5, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 287. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16084A755; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 
61485).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 
2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 3, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised certain 
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System 
Instrumentation,'' actions. Specifically, TS Table 3.3-1, Action 2, is 
revised to allow one power range (PR) channel to be bypassed for up to 
4 hours for surveillance testing, and two new action notes are 
established for the PR nuclear instrumentation in TS Table 4.3-1. The 
changes support the installation and use of bypass test capability for 
the PR nuclear instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
at Salem, Unit No. 1, prior to returning to the MODE of applicability 
following refueling outage 1R24, and at Salem, Unit No. 2, prior to 
returning to the MODE of applicability following refueling outage 2R22.
    Amendment Nos.: 312 (Unit No. 1) and 293 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16054A068; 
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: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 
38776). The supplemental letter dated 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of April 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-09543 Filed 4-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P