Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 32800-32815 [2016-11976]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32800-32815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11976]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0100]


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 April 26, 2016, to May 9, 2016. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28891).

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 23, 2016. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 25, 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-2016-0100. 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

[[Page 32801]]

Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: Mable.Henderson@nrc.gov.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0100 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-2016-0100.
     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.
     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-2016-0100, 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 will post 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 available 
to the public or entering the comment 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, or (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 makes 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

[[Page 32802]]

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) through (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 July 
25, 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 
July 25, 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 
ten 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

[[Page 32803]]

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 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 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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona
    Date of amendment request: April 1, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16096A337.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, by modifying the requirements 
regarding the degraded and loss of voltage relays that are planned to 
be modified to be more aligned with designs generally implemented in 
the industry. Specifically, the licensing basis for degraded voltage 
protection will be changed from reliance on a TS initial condition that 
ensures adequate post-trip voltage support of accident mitigation 
equipment to crediting automatic actuation of the degraded and loss of 
voltage relays to ensure proper equipment performance.
    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 would revise the allowable values of the 
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Engineered Safety 
Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Class 1E 4.16 [kiloVolt (kV)] bus 
degraded voltage and loss of voltage relays. Specifically, the 
proposed change includes a two stage time delay for the degraded 
voltage relays and a fixed time delay for the loss of voltage relays 
with corresponding voltage settings. The proposed change is 
supported by design calculations and analyses to ensure that the 
Class 1E buses will be isolated from the normal off-site power 
source at the appropriate voltage level and time delay under either 
accident or non-accident sustained degraded voltage conditions. The 
normally operating safety-related motors will continue to operate 
without sustaining damage or tripping during the worst-case, 
accident (i.e., safety injection actuation signal, SIAS) or non-
accident degraded voltage condition for the maximum possible time-
delay. Thus, the safety-related loads will be available to perform 
their safety function if a loss-of coolant accident (LOCA) 
coincident with a loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) occurs following a 
degraded voltage condition.
    The proposed change implements a new design for a reduced (short 
stage) time delay to isolate safety buses from offsite power if a 
LOCA were to occur coincident with a sustained degraded voltage 
condition. This ensures that emergency core cooling system pumps 
inject water into the reactor vessel within the time assumed and 
evaluated in the accident analysis, consistent with current NRC 
requirements and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design 
Criterion 17, Electric Power Systems.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors. The diesel generator start, due to a LOCA signal, and 
loading sequence are not affected by this change. During an actual 
loss of voltage or degraded voltage condition, the loss of voltage 
and/or degraded voltage time delay will isolate the Class 1E 4.16 kV 
distribution system from offsite power before the diesel is ready to 
assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time basis for 
mitigating system responses to the accident. For this reason, the 
existing LOCA with coincident LOOP analysis continues to be valid.
    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

[[Page 32804]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change would revise the allowable values of the 
PVNGS ESFAS Class 1E 4.16 kV bus degraded voltage and loss of 
voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed change includes a two 
stage time delay for the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time 
delay for the loss of voltage relays with corresponding voltage 
settings.
    The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms 
that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 
While the proposed change does install new relays, with new settings 
and time delays, the relays are not new to the industry and are not 
being operated in a unique or different manner. No new effects on 
existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions 
introduced.
    The accidents and events previously analyzed remain bounding. 
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 change would revise the allowable values of the 
PVNGS ESFAS Class 1E 4.16 kV bus degraded voltage and loss of 
voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed change includes a two 
stage time delay for the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time 
delay for the loss of voltage relays with corresponding voltage 
settings. The proposed change implements a new design for a reduced 
time delay to isolate safety buses from offsite power if a LOCA were 
to occur coincident with a sustained degraded voltage condition. 
This ensures that emergency core cooling system pumps inject water 
into the reactor vessel within the time assumed and evaluated in the 
accident analysis, consistent with current NRC requirements and 10 
CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 17, Electric Power 
Systems. The proposed TS change to the maximum and minimum allowable 
voltages for the Class 1E 4.16 kV buses will allow all safety loads 
to have sufficient voltage to perform their intended safety 
functions while ensuring spurious trips are avoided. Thus, the 
results of the accident analyses will not be affected as the input 
assumptions are protected.
    The diesel generator start, due to a LOCA signal, is not 
affected by this change. During an actual loss of voltage or 
degraded voltage condition, the loss of voltage and/or degraded 
voltage relay voltage settings and time delays will continue to 
isolate the Class 1E 4.16 kV distribution system from offsite power 
before the emergency diesel generator is ready to assume the 
emergency loads. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve 
a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: January 25, 2016. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16029A168.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise MPS2 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling Systems, 
ECCS Subsystems--Tavg > 300 [deg]F,'' to remove the charging 
system and eliminate Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.e from the TSs. The 
proposed amendment would also revise MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report 
(FSAR) Chapter 14, Section 14.6.1, ``Inadvertent Opening of a 
Pressurized Water Reactor Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve,'' to 
reflect the results of a new long-term analysis for the Inadvertent 
Opening of Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve (IOPPRV) event that does 
not credit charging flow. The proposed amendment would also revise MPS2 
FSAR, Section 14.0.11, to clarify the existing discussion regarding the 
application of single failure criteria.
    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, with NRC staff revisions 
provided in [brackets]:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The FSAR Chapter 14 accident analyses for MPS2 do not take 
credit for the flow delivered by the charging pumps. Additionally, 
the proposed change does not modify any plant equipment or method of 
operation for any [structures, systems, and components] SSC[s] 
required for safe operation of the facility or mitigation of 
accidents assumed in the facility safety analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment will not significantly 
increase 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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not modify any plant equipment or 
method of operation for any SSC required for safe operation of the 
facility or mitigation of accidents assumed in the facility safety 
analyses. As such, no new failure modes are introduced by the 
proposed change. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not 
introduce any accident initiators or malfunctions that would cause a 
new or different kind of accident.
    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 amendment does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety since the proposed changes do not affect 
equipment design or operation, and no changes are being made to the 
TS-required safety limits or safety system settings. The proposed 
changes involve a new safety analysis for the long-term event 
response for FSAR Chapter 14.6.1, ``Inadvertent Opening of a 
Pressurized Water Reactor Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve.'' The 
analysis demonstrates that flow from two [high pressure safety 
injection] HPSI pumps, with no credit for the charging pumps, is 
sufficient to prevent long-term core uncovery, and thus there is no 
challenge to the specified acceptable fuel design limits. By meeting 
the MPS2 FSAR Chapter 14 acceptance criteria for a moderate 
frequency event, there is no significant reduction in the 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: January 26, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A358.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Section 9.5 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to allow fuel 
movement to start 100 hours after reactor subcriticality and proceed at 
an average rate of six assemblies per hour provided the Reactor 
Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW) temperature to the spent fuel 
pool cooling and shutdown cooling heat exchangers is maintained at less 
than or equal to 75 [deg]F. If 75 [deg]F cooling water is not 
achievable, fuel movement at an

[[Page 32805]]

average rate of six fuel assemblies per hour could be permitted at 150 
hours after subcriticality and then only with RBCCW temperatures less 
than or equal to 85[deg]F. The proposed changes to FSAR Section 9.5 
would also address some typographical errors. Technical Specification 
Bases Section 3/4.9.3 would also be revised to remove reference to the 
MPS2 spent fuel pool (SFP) heat load analysis.
    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, with NRC staff revisions 
provided in [brackets]:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment affects some assumptions in the MPS2 FSAR 
related to the performance of the SFP cooling system and cooling of 
the fuel in the refueling pool. However, the existing design limits 
for the SFP remain unchanged. Reducing the decay time from 150 hours 
to 100 hours prior to allowing fuel movement at an increased average 
rate of six fuel assemblies per hour does not adversely affect SFP 
design or operation, provided proposed RBCCW temperature limits are 
satisfied. The proposed amendment does not change the design or 
function of the SFP cooling system and is consistent with that 
previously approved by the NRC under License Amendment 240.
    The proposed amendment does not affect the temperature limits of 
the SFP. The thermal-hydraulic analyses supporting the amendment 
show that the SFP temperature limits continue to be met with 
increased heat loads due to reduced time to fuel movement and a 
higher rate of fuel movement. SFP heat load is not an initiator of 
any accident discussed in Chapter 14 of the MPS2 FSAR. The proposed 
amendment does not affect the capability of plant structures, 
systems, or components (SCCs) to perform their design function and 
does not increase the probability of a malfunction of any SSC.
    The MPS2 FSAR Chapter 14 accident analyses, including the FHA 
[fuel handling accident] presented in FSAR Section 14.7.4, are not 
affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment does not 
increase the probability of a FHA, change the assumptions in the 
FHA, or affect the conclusions of the current FHA analysis of 
record. The current FHA analysis of record assumes a minimum 100-
hour decay time, which is consistent with the minimum allowable 
decay time assumed in the thermal-hydraulic analyses that support 
this amendment. The dose results of the FHA analysis are unchanged, 
and remain within applicable regulatory limits.
    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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would revise the minimum allowed start 
time to begin fuel movement from 150 hours to 100 hours after 
reactor subcriticality and increase the maximum allowable rate of 
fuel assembly movement from an average of four assemblies per hour 
to an average of six assemblies per hour. The revised decay time 
limit and fuel offload rates do not create the possibility of a new 
type of accident because the methods for moving fuel and the 
operation of equipment used for moving fuel are not changed. The 
proposed amendment does not add or modify any plant equipment. The 
design and testing of systems designed to maintain the SFP 
temperature within established limits are not affected by the 
proposed change. The proposed amendment does not create any credible 
new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not 
considered in the design and licensing basis.
    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 FHA analysis of record already accounts for irradiated fuel 
with at least 100 hours of decay. This approved analysis has shown 
that the projected doses will remain within applicable regulatory 
limits. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin 
of safety of the currently approved FHA analysis of record.
    The SFP heat load analyses submitted demonstrate that the impact 
of reduced decay time on SFP decay heat load is offset by the 
reduced cooling water temperatures such that the maximum normally 
allowed pool temperature is not exceeded. The slight 1.6 [deg]F 
increase in SFP temperature for full core off-load as a normal event 
(for 100 hour hold time with 75 [deg]F RBCCW temperature) is not a 
significant change and remains below the maximum normally allowed 
SFP temperature of 150 [deg]F. The peak temperature of the SFP 
during a loss of cooling event is unaffected and the peak 
temperature of the fuel cladding, or along the fuel, remains within 
acceptable limits. 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16067A390.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements for heaters in the 
Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) and Control Room Emergency Filtration 
(CREF) ventilation systems. The proposed amendment is consistent with 
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements 
to Operate for 10 hours per Month,'' as published in the Federal 
Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421), with variations due to 
plant-specific nomenclature.
    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 replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped 
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days 
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes 
with heaters operating.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    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 replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped 
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days 
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes 
with heaters operating.
    The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not 
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing

[[Page 32806]]

requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    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 replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped 
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days 
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes 
with heaters operating.
    The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat 
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater 
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the 
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design 
function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory 
guidance.
    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 A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
    Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A227.
    Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the 
Calvert Cliffs technical specifications (TSs) to correct an 
administrative error in the License Amendment Request (LAR) submitted 
in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 523, 
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.'' The proposed 
change would add Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.10 to the list of 
applicable Surveillances of SR 3.5.3.1.
    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 any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed LAR is purely an administrative change; therefore, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
TS for which SR 3.5.2.10 is applicable, continue to be operable and 
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 amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed LAR is purely an administrative change. The 
proposed change to add SR 3.5.2.10 to the list of applicable 
surveillances in SR 3.5.3.1 does not create a new or different kind 
of accident previously evaluated.
    The change does 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 change does not impose any new or different requirements. The 
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 
proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions 
and current plant operating practice.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed LAR is purely an administrative change to add SR 
3.5.2.10 to the list of applicable surveillances in SR 3.5.3.1.
    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). 
Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria 
as described in the plant licensing basis.
    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 
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16060A223.
    Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the 
Calvert Cliffs technical specifications (TSs) to permit the use of 
Risk-Informed Completion Times in accordance with TSTF-505, Revision 1, 
``Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF Initiative 
4b.'' The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the 
Federal Register on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15399).
    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 any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times 
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance 
with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes 
involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The 
proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident 
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems 
is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the 
extended Completion Time are no different from those during the 
existing Completion Time.
    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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or 
method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind 
of equipment will be installed).

[[Page 32807]]

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times 
provided that risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the 
NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed 
changes implement a risk-informed configuration management program 
to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. 
Application of these new specifications and the configuration 
management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems 
or components being out of service and does so more effectively than 
the current TS.
    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 
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16090A286.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for snubbers.
    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 TS 4.7.4 to conform the TS to 
the revised Snubber Program. Snubber examination, testing, and 
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.55a(g). Snubber examination, testing, and service life 
monitoring are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated. 
Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is 
not significantly increased. Snubbers will continue to be 
demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, 
testing, and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 
50.55a or authorized alternatives. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect plant operations, design functions, or analyses 
that verify the capability of systems, structures, and components to 
perform their design functions. Therefore, the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Based on the above, these 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 any physical alteration of 
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by 
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no 
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic 
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing 
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety 
analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, it is concluded that these proposed changes do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing, and 
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by 
performance of a program for examination, testing, and service life 
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized 
alternatives.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), Docket No. 50-298, Cooper 
Nuclear Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16110A425.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
CNS technical specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance 
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, 
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative 
5b,'' dated March 18, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The 
availability of this TS improvement program was announced in the 
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The NPPD has proposed 
certain plant-specific variations and deviations from TSTF-425, 
Revision 3, as described in its application dated March 22, 2016.
    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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which 
is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
SFCP [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. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The change does 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 change does not impose any new or 
different requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made

[[Page 32808]]

in the safety analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for structures, systems, components, 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, NPPD will perform a 
probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC 
approved NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16068A130.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
emergency plan for Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), to adopt 
the emergency action level scheme pursuant to Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for 
Non-Passive Reactors.''
    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?
    The proposed changes to the Seabrook emergency action levels 
neither 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, and they do not alter design assumptions, plant 
configuration, or the manner in which the plant is operated and 
maintained. The proposed change does 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 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?
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
The changes do not challenge the integrity or performance of any 
safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, 
and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or 
method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made 
to the plant, and emergency action levels are not accident 
initiators[,] so no new causal mechanisms are introduced.
    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?
    Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission 
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of 
radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not impact 
operation of the plant and no accident analyses are affected by the 
proposed changes. The changes do not affect the Technical 
Specifications or the method of operating the plant. Additionally, 
the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish 
safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The 
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these 
changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in 
a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do 
not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the 
plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    Therefore, the proposed change 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: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-
0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama
    Date of amendment request: March 16, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16076A217.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
technical specifications to allow the use of Optimized 
ZIRLOTM as an approved fuel rod cladding.
    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 would allow the use of Optimized 
ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC 
approved topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A 
``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' prepared by Westinghouse Electric 
Company LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM 
and demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially 
the same properties as currently licensed ZIRLOTM. The 
fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and does not 
affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM 
fuel cladding has been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance 
criteria and, therefore, will not increase the consequences of an 
accident.
    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.
    Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in 
changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical 
Report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A demonstrated that the 
material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to 
those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel 
rod cladding will perform similarly to those fabricated from 
ZIRLO[supreg], thus precluding the

[[Page 32809]]

possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a 
new or different type of accident.
    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 proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the 
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLOTM are not 
significantly different from those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized 
ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to ZIRLO[supreg] 
for all normal operating and accident scenarios, including both loss 
of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA 
scenarios, plant-specific evaluations have been performed which 
allow the use of fuel assemblies with fuel rods containing Optimized 
ZIRLOTM. These LOCA evaluations address the NRC SER 
[safety evaluation report] conditions and limitations for Optimized 
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding and provide continued 
compliance with the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46.
    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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia; Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama; Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, 
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16074A185.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would adopt the 
NRC-approved Technical Task Force Traveler TSTF-65-A, Revision 1, ``Use 
of Generic Titles for Utility Positions.'' The proposed change would 
allow use of generic personnel titles in lieu of plant-specific titles.
    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.
    This change has no effect on structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) of the plants. There are no changes to plant operations, or 
to any design function or analysis that verifies the capability of 
an SSC to perform a design function. There are no previously 
evaluated accidents affected by this change. The proposed changes 
are administrative in nature, and as such, do not affect indicators 
of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients.
    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?
    This change has no effect on the design function or operation of 
SSCs, and will not affect the SSCs' operation or ability to perform 
their design functions. This change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plants, add any new equipment, or allow any 
existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the 
present method of operation.
    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 changes involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    This change is administrative in nature and has no effect on 
plant design margins. There are no changes being made to safety 
limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely 
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel of Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 
40 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia
    Date of amendment request: March 16, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16076A217.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications to allow the use of Optimized 
ZIRLOTM as an approved fuel rod cladding.
    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 would allow the use of Optimized 
ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC 
approved topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A 
``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' prepared by Westinghouse Electric 
Company LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM 
and demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially 
the same properties as currently licensed ZIRLOTM. The 
fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and does not 
affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM 
fuel cladding has been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance 
criteria and, therefore, will not increase the consequences of an 
accident.
    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.
    Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in 
changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical 
Report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD- 404-P-A demonstrated that the 
material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to 
those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel 
rod cladding will perform similarly to those fabricated from 
ZIRLO[supreg], thus precluding the possibility of the fuel becoming 
an accident initiator and causing a new or different type of 
accident.
    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 change will not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the 
material properties of the Optimized

[[Page 32810]]

ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from those of 
ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform 
similarly to ZIRLO[supreg] for all normal operating and accident 
scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-
LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, plant-specific evaluations have 
been performed which allow the use of fuel assemblies with fuel rods 
containing Optimized ZIRLOTM. These LOCA evaluations 
address the NRC SER [safety evaluation report] conditions and 
limitations for Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding and 
provide continued compliance with the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 
50.46.
    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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: January 28, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 6, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML16029A031 and Package Accession No. ML16097A486, 
respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Unit 2, Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.7.1, ``Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) 
System and the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' and TS 3.8.7, ``Distribution 
Systems--Operating,'' to increase the completion time for Conditions A 
and B of TS 3.7.1 and Condition C of TS 3.8.7 from 72 hours to 7 days, 
in order to accommodate 480 volt (V) engineered safeguard system (ESS) 
load center (LC) transformer replacements on SSES, Unit 2. The proposed 
change is temporary and will be annotated by a note in each TS that 
specifies the allowance expires on June 15, 2020.
    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 change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The temporary changes to the completion times for TS 3.8.7, 
Condition C and TS 3.7.1, Conditions A and B are necessary to 
implement plant changes, which replace the Unit 1--480 V ESS LC 
Transformers 1X210 and 1X220 in order to mitigate the loss of the 
transformer due to failure. The temporary change to the completion 
time for TS 3.8.7, Condition C is also necessary to implement plant 
changes, which replace the Unit 1--480 V ESS LC Transformers 1X230 
and 1X240 in order to mitigate the loss of the transformer due to 
failure. These replacements decrease the probability of a 
transformer failure. The current assumptions in the safety analysis 
regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are 
unaffected by these changes. No SSC [structure, system, or 
component] failure modes or mechanisms are being introduced, and the 
likelihood of previously analyzed failures remains unchanged.
    The proposed change requests the Completion Time to restore a 
Unit 2 RHRSW subsystem be extended to 7 days in order to replace 
Unit 1 transformers 1X210 and 1X220. The extended Completion Times 
for TS 3.7.1 Conditions A and B are only applicable when 
transformers 1X210 or 1X220 are out of service with the intent of 
replacing the transformer.
    During the replacements, the affected Unit 2 RHRSW subsystem 
will remain functional while the other subsystem of Unit 2 RHRSW 
will remain Operable. Operator action required to restore full 
capability of cooling provided by the Ultimate Heat Sink will only 
consist of manually operating two (2) valves; the Large Spray Array 
and the UHS bypass. This action can easily be completed within 
several hours and would restore full cooling to the RHRSW system.
    Therefore, this 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 changes involve the increase of TS Completion Times 
to allow replacement of four (4) Unit 1--480 V ESS LC Transformers. 
New transformers will be installed but will not be operated in a new 
or different manner. There are no setpoints at which protective or 
mitigative actions are initiated [which are] affected by this 
change. These changes do not alter the manner in which equipment 
operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited 
equipment be changed. No alterations to procedures that ensure the 
plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no 
major changes are being made to procedures relied upon during off-
normal events as described in the FSAR [final safety analysis 
report].
    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.
    Operational safety margin is established through equipment 
design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic 
actions are initiated. The proposed changes are acceptable because 
the Completion Time extensions allow replacement of the Unit 1--480 
V ESS LC Transformers, equipment essential to safe plant operation, 
while ensuring safety related functions of affected equipment are 
maintained.
    With the RHRSW Spray Pond Return Bypass Valves on the out of 
service loop electrically de-powered in the open position, a return 
flow path will be established. Since the RHRSW Pumps on Unit 2 are 
not impacted by the transformers outages, the affected RHRSW Loop on 
Unit 2 will be capable of providing cooling. This configuration will 
continue to provide the margin of safety assumed by the safety 
analysis, although the affected RHRSW loop will be administratively 
declared Inoperable.
    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: Damon D. Obie, Esquire, Associate General 
Counsel, Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, 
Allentown, PA 18101.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: December 8, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 11, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML15342A477 and ML16071A456, respectively. The 
letter dated March 11, 2016, supersedes the December 8, 2015, amendment 
request in its entirety.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 
(TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to extend the Completion Time 
(CT) for one inoperable Diesel Generator (DG) from 72 hours to 14 days, 
based on the availability of an alternate alternating current (AC) 
power source (specifically,

[[Page 32811]]

the FLEX DG added as part of the mitigating strategies for beyond-
design-basis events in response to NRC Order EA-12-049). The amendments 
would also make clarifying changes to certain TS 3.8.1 conditions, 
required actions, and surveillance 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:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the design of the DGs, the 
operational characteristics or function of the DGs, the interfaces 
between the DGs and other plant systems, or the reliability of the 
DGs. Required Actions and their associated CTs are not considered 
initiating conditions for any UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report] accident previously evaluated, nor are the DGs considered 
initiators of any previously evaluated accidents. The DGs are 
provided to mitigate the consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents, including a loss of off-site power.
    The consequences of previously evaluated accidents will not be 
significantly affected by the extended DG CT, because a sufficient 
number of onsite Alternating Current power sources will continue to 
remain available to perform the accident mitigation functions 
associated with the DGs, as assumed in the accident analyses. In 
addition, as a risk mitigation and defense-in-depth action, an 
independent AC power source, an available FLEX DG, will be available 
to support the ESF [engineered safety feature] bus with the 
inoperable DG during a SBO [station blackout].
    Therefore, this 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 change in the permanent 
design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The 
proposed changes will not alter the manner in which equipment 
operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited 
equipment be changed. The proposed changes allow operation of the 
unit to continue while a DG is repaired and retested with the FLEX 
DG in standby to mitigate a SBO event. The proposed extensions do 
not affect the interaction of a DG with any system whose failure or 
malfunction can initiate an accident. As such, no new failure modes 
are being introduced. 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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design, 
including instrument set points, nor does it change the assumptions 
contained in the safety analyses. The FLEX DG alternate AC system is 
designed with sufficient redundancy such that a DG may be removed 
from service for maintenance or testing. The remaining DGs are 
capable of carrying sufficient electrical loads to satisfy the UFSAR 
requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown. The 
proposed changes do not affect the redundancy or availability 
requirements of offsite power supplies or change the ability of the 
plant to cope with station blackout events.
    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: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President 
and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill 
Dr., 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 
and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 23, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 26, 2014; December 15, 2014; January 22, 2015; 
April 23, 2015; and November 16, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Renewed 
Facility Operating Licenses and technical specifications (TSs) to 
implement a measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate at 
Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 1 (Catawba 1) that increases the rated 
thermal power (RTP) from 3411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3469 MWt. This 
is an increase of approximately 1.7 percent RTP. This increase is based 
on the use of Cameron (a.k.a. Caldon) instrumentation to determine core 
power level with a power measurement uncertainty of approximately 0.3 
percent. As noted in the licensee's application, although the MUR 
uprate was for Catawba 1, the amendment request was submitted for both 
units. This is because the TSs are common to both units.
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit 1) and 277 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16081A333; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2014 (79 FR 
65429). The supplemental letters dated August 26, 2014; December 15, 
2014;

[[Page 32812]]

January 22, 2015; April 23, 2015; and November 16, 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 April 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Duke Energy 
Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear 
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 16, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
technical specification (TS) requirements regarding steam generator 
tube inspections and reporting as described in Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF)-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator 
Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
    Date of issuance: April 26, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 280, 276, 284, 263, 396, 398, and 397. A publicly-
available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. 
ML16075A301.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, NPF-
17, DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: Amendments revised the licenses and 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 23, 2015 (80 FR 
35981).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 19, 2015, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 20, 2015, and February 26, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments add a Reactor 
Protective System Nuclear Overpower--High Setpoint trip for three (3) 
reactor coolant pump operation to Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-
1, ``Reactor Protective System Instrumentation.'' The existing 
overpower protection for three (3) reactor coolant pump operation is 
the Nuclear Overpower Flux/Flow/Imbalance trip function. The new 
setpoint provides an absolute setpoint that can be actuated regardless 
of the transient or Reactor Coolant System flow conditions and provides 
a significant margin gain for the small steam line break accident.
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 397 for Unit 1, 399 for Unit 2, and 398 for Unit 3. 
A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. 
ML16088A330; documents related to these amendments are listed in the 
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 
65810). The supplemental letter dated February 26, 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 April 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant Unit No. 2, Hartsville, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 13, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 19, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopted the NRC-
endorsed Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, 
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: April 28, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 245. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16061A472; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment 
revised the emergency action level technical bases document.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 
46348). The supplemental letter dated November 19, 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 April 28, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina; Docket No. 50-400; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 
1, Wake County, North Carolina; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 
50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, 
South Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, 
Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; and Docket Nos. 50-
269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 
Oconee County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 24, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated January 18, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise or add 
Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system locations 
susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and 
to provide allowances which permit performance of the verification. The 
changes are being made to address the concerns discussed in NRC Generic 
Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, 
Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems'' (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML072910759). The amendments reference TSTF-523, Revision 2, 
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (79 FR 2700).
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 1 year.
    Amendment Nos.: 270 and 298, for the Brunswick Steam Electric 
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 150, for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant, Unit 1; 282 and 278, for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 
and 2; 285 and 264, for

[[Page 32813]]

the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and 398, 400, and 399, for 
the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16085A113; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71, DPR-62, for the 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; NPF-63, for the 
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; NPF-35 and NPF-52, for the 
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; NPF-9 and NPF-17, for the 
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, for 
the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3: The amendments revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR 
48923). This Federal Register notice was corrected on August 20, 2015 
(80 FR 50663). The supplemental letter dated January 18, 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 
determinations as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: June 11, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the date of 
the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 and the 
associated existing facility operating license condition regarding full 
implementation of the CSP. The CSP and associated implementation 
schedule was previously approved by the NRC staff by letter dated 
December 8, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14237A144).
    Date of issuance: May 2, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 259. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16078A068; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: 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 May 2, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduced the reactor 
steam dome pressure stated in the technical specifications (TSs) for 
the reactor core safety limits. The change addresses a 10 CFR part 21 
issue concerning the potential to violate the safety limits during a 
pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open) transient.
    Date of issuance: April 27, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendments Nos.: 306 and 310. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16064A150; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2016 (81 FR 
263). The supplemental letter dated March 15, 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 April 27, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 23, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.10.1, ``Inservice 
Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' to allow more efficient 
testing during a refueling outage. The change is based on NRC-approved 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-484, Revision 0, ``Use of TS 
3.10.1 for Scram Time Testing Activities.''
    Date of issuance: May 9, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendments Nos.: 307 and 311. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16084A968; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 
10680).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 9, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: December 30, 2014, as 
supplemented by letters dated May 8, 2015, July 30, 2015, October 15, 
2015, and February 8, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments allow revision to 
DNPS technical specifications (TSs) in support of a new nuclear 
criticality safety analysis methodology, use of a new fuel assembly 
design to store AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel in the DNPS spent fuel pools 
(SFPs), and addition of a new TS 4.3.1.1c criticality parameter related 
to the maximum in-rack infinite k-effective (kinf) limit for 
fuel assemblies allowed to be stored in the SFP racks. Additionally, 
the DNPS licenses will be amended to ensure that any loss or reduction 
of SFP neutron-absorbing capacity will be promptly detected, and that 
the licensee will perform confirmatory testing to ensure that the 
minimum B-10 areal density continues to be met for the BORAL panels 
installed in the SFPs at DNPS.
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 249 and 242. A publicly-available version is under 
ADAMS Accession No. ML15343A126;

[[Page 32814]]

documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The 
amendments revise the DNPS Technical Specifications and Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 5, 2015 (80 FR 
68573).
    The supplements dated October 15, 2015, and February 8, 2016, 
contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's 
initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.

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: April 1, 2015, as supplemented 
by letters dated October 14, 2015, and February 19, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises certain 
technical specification minimum voltage and frequency acceptance 
criteria for emergency diesel generator testing.
    Date of issuance: April 27, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by June 15, 2016.
    Amendment No.: 291. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16083A481. 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 and Technical Specifications.
    Date of notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38759). The 
supplemental letters dated October 14, 2015, and February 19, 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 April 27, 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: April 16, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 7, 2015, and March 29, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs) related to the boric acid tank to 
reflect a correction to a calculation.
    Date of issuance: April 26, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 270 (Unit No. 3) and 265 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16004A019; 
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: September 1, 2015 (80 
FR 52806). The supplements dated December 7, 2015, and March 29, 2016, 
provided additional information that clarified the application and did 
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power 
Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, California

    Date of application for amendment: May 3, 2013, as supplemented 
February 14, 2014, April 2, 2014, May 13, 2014, August 13, 2014, and 
March 16, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds License 
Condition 2.C.(5) to the Humboldt Bay license. This new license 
condition incorporates the NRC approved ``License Termination Plan'' 
(LTP), and associated addendum, into the Humboldt Bay license and 
specifies limits on the changes the licensee is allowed to make to the 
approved LTP without prior NRC review and approval.
    Date of issuance: May 4, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 45. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15090A339; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-7: This amendment revises the 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013, (78 
FR 54285).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 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: April 3, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 2, 2015; November 27, 2015; February 3, 2016; 
February 10, 2016; and March 4, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' to 
support planned plant modifications to replace the existing source 
range and intermediate range nuclear instrumentation with equivalent 
neutron monitoring systems to increase system reliability.
    Date of issuance: April 28, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
at Salem, Unit No. 1, during the fall 2017 refueling outage (1R25), and 
at Salem, Unit No. 2, during the spring 2017 refueling outage (2R22).
    Amendment Nos.: 313 (Unit No. 1) and 294 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16096A419; 
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: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 
46350). The supplemental letters dated November 27, 2015; February 3, 
2016; February 10, 2016; and March 4, 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 April 28, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 32815]]

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: September 29, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopts the NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, 
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
    Date of issuance: May 6, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 204. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16104A295; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 
FR 73241).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 29, October 8, and November 11, 2015, and March 17, 
2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 6.8.3.j, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to 
allow a permanent extension of the Type A primary containment 
integrated leak rate testing frequency from once every 10 years to once 
every 15 years.
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--210; Unit 2--197. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16116A007; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR 
48942). The notice was corrected on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The 
supplemental letters dated October 8 and November 11, 2015, and March 
17, 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 April 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: September 25, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 28, 2015, and March 28, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
specification (TS) Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) 
numeric values. The change decreased the numeric values of SLMCPR in TS 
Section 2.1.1.2 for single and two reactor recirculation loop operation 
based on the Cycle 12 SLMCPR evaluation.
    Date of issuance: April 26, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
during the Unit 1 refueling outage in the fall of 2016.
    Amendment No.: 295. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16028A414, documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2016 (81 FR 
276). The supplemental letters dated December 28, 2015, and March 28, 
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 an SE dated April 26, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of May 2016.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-11976 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P