Florida Power & Light Company; St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, 46124-46125 [2016-16763]
Download as PDF
46124
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2016 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–389; NRC–2015–0235]
Florida Power & Light Company; St.
Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Director’s decision under 10
CFR 2.206; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
has issued a director’s decision with
regard to a petition dated March 10,
2014, as supplemented, filed by the
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
(SACE, the petitioner), requesting that
the NRC take action with regard to St.
Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2 (SL–2). The
petitioner’s requests and the director’s
decision are included in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2015–0235 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0235. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced.
• 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the Director, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued
director’s decision DD–16–02 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16167A086) on a
petition filed by the petitioner on March
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Jul 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
10, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14071A431), as supplemented.1
The petitioner requested a hearing on
what the petitioner characterized as a de
facto license amendment for the
replacement of the steam generators
(SGs) in 2007 at SL–2, under § 50.59 of
title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Changes, tests
and experiments.’’ SACE requested that
the NRC revoke the de facto license
amendment and stay the restart of SL–
2 from the March 3, 2014, refueling
outage pending resolution of the hearing
request. As the basis for this request, the
petitioner stated that Florida Power &
Light Company (the licensee)
misapplied 10 CFR 50.59 and that the
SG replacement should have required a
license amendment. The petitioner also
expressed concerns (1) related to the
inspection of the replacement SGs and
(2) regarding the effects of the extended
power uprate (EPU) on SG tube
inservice inspection and flow-induced
effects on the SG internals.
The Commission, by a memorandum
and order (CLI–14–04) dated April 1,
2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14091B118), denied SACE’s request
to stay the restart of SL–2 from the
March 3, 2014, refueling outage.
Subsequently, by a memorandum and
order (CLI–14–11) dated December 19,
2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14353A114), the Commission denied
SACE’s hearing request, concluded that
the NRC did not issue the licensee a de
facto license amendment, and referred
SACE’s safety concerns regarding the
replacement SGs at SL–2 to the NRC’s
Executive Director for Operations for
disposition under 10 CFR 2.206,
‘‘Requests for action under this
subpart.’’ Therefore, the staff treated
these concerns in SACE’s hearing
request as a petition for enforcement
action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. On
February 24, 2015, (ADAMS Accession
No. ML15057A221) and August 5, 2015
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15217A443),
SACE informed the NRC staff by
telephone that it had decided not to
request a meeting with the NRC’s
Petition Review Board with regard to its
10 CFR 2.206 petition.
By letter dated September 28, 2015
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15205A313),
the NRC acknowledged receipt of
SACE’s 10 CFR 2.206 petition and
notified SACE of the NRC’s acceptance
of a portion of the petition (i.e., one of
SACE’s safety concerns) for review in
the 10 CFR 2.206 process. The portion
1 Supplements (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML14115A457, ML14115A458, ML14125A514,
ML14128A557, ML14143A412, ML14147A523,
ML14310A811, and ML14337A792).
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the petition that the NRC accepted for
review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process
addresses the licensee’s application of
10 CFR 50.59 with respect to the change
in a methodology for evaluating SGs, as
described in the updated final safety
analysis report (UFSAR). The letter also
stated that the NRC staff was evaluating
whether the licensee properly applied
10 CFR 50.59 when it changed the
structural analysis codes as described in
the UFSAR.
The staff’s September 28, 2015, letter
explained why the NRC did not accept
the remaining portion of the petition for
review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process.
This portion of the petition raised safety
concerns related to (1) inspection of the
replacement SGs and (2) the effects of
the EPU on SG tube inservice inspection
and flow-induced effects on the SG
internals. These concerns met the
criteria for rejection in NRC
Management Directive 8.11, ‘‘Review
Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions,’’
dated October 25, 2000 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML041770328), because
the concerns had already been
reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by
the NRC staff.
By letters to the petitioner and
licensee dated May 24, 2016 (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML16055A311 and
ML16055A330, respectively), the NRC
issued the proposed director’s decision
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16055A284)
for comment. The petitioner and the
licensee were asked to provide
comments within 15 days on any part of
the proposed director’s decision that
was considered to be erroneous or any
issues in the petition that were not
addressed. The NRC staff did not
receive any comments on the proposed
director’s decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation has denied the
petitioner’s requested enforcement
actions against the licensee. The reasons
for this decision are explained in
director’s decision DD–16–02 pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s
regulations.
The NRC will file a copy of the
director’s decision with the Secretary of
the Commission for the Commission’s
review in accordance with 10 CFR
2.206. As provided by this regulation,
the director’s decision will constitute
the final action of the Commission 25
days after the date of the decision unless
the Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the director’s
decision in that time.
Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of July
2016.
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2016 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William M. Dean,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
[FR Doc. 2016–16763 Filed 7–14–16; 8:45 am]
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend its
Fees Schedule, effective July 1, 2016.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
adopt a program that offers a monthly
subsidy to Trading Permit Holders
(‘‘TPHs’’) with executing agent
operations 3 during the Extended
Trading Hours (‘‘ETH’’) trading session.
To participate in the ETH Executing
Agent Subsidy Program, a TPH must be
a designated ETH executing agent. To
become a designated ETH executing
agent, a TPH must submit a form to the
Exchange.4 The TPH must include on or
with the form information
demonstrating it maintains an ETH
executing agent operation: (1) Physically
staffed throughout each entire ETH
trading session 5 and (2) willing to
accept and execute orders on behalf of
customers, including customers for
which the agent does not hold accounts.
The designation will be effective the
first business day of the following
calendar month, subject to the
Exchange’s confirmation the TPH’s ETH
executing agent operations satisfies [sic]
these two conditions, and will remain in
effect until the Exchange receives an
email from the TPH terminating its
designation or the Exchange determines
the TPH’s ETH executing agent
operation no longer satisfies these two
conditions.
A designated ETH executing agent
will be eligible to receive a $5,000
monthly subsidy if it executes at least
1,000 contracts on behalf of customers
(including public and broker-dealer
customers) during ETH in a calendar
month (which is an average of 50
contracts per ETH trading session,
assuming a 20-trading day month).
Within two business days following the
end of a calendar month, in order to
receive the subsidy for that month, the
designated ETH executing agent must
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–78276; File No. SR–CBOE–
2016–041]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Amend the Fees
Schedule
July 11, 2016.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on June 28,
2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or
‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of the Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend its
Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the
Exchange’s Web site (https://
www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/
CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission’s Public
Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for
the proposed rule change and discussed
any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these
statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item IV below. The
Exchange has prepared summaries, set
forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
the most significant aspects of such
statements.
1 15
2 17
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Jul 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
3 An executing agent operation is one that accepts
orders from customers (who may be public or
broker-dealer customers, and including customers
for which the agent does not hold accounts) and
submits the orders for execution (either directly to
the Exchange or through another TPH).
4 The ETH Executing Agent Subsidy Registration
Form may be submitted to Registration@cboe.com.
A TPH must submit the form to the Exchange no
later than 3:00 p.m. on the second to last business
day of a calendar month to be designated an ETH
executing agent under the program, and thus
eligible for the subsidy, beginning the following
calendar month.
5 This generally means the TPH has persons
available during all hours of the ETH trading
session to take orders (such as by telephone) from
customers.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46125
submit to the Exchange (in a form and
manner determined by the Exchange)
documentation and other evidence it
executed at least 1,000 contracts on
behalf of customers during ETH that
month.
The Exchange believes this program
will incentivize TPHs to conduct
executing agent operations during ETH
to increase customer accessibility to the
ETH trading session. The purpose of the
subsidy is to help TPHs offset the costs
that accompany this type of operation
during ETH, including costs related to
staffing and clearing.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act
and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the Exchange
and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.6 Specifically,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) 7 requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged
in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with
the Section 6(b)(5) 8 requirement that
the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Exchange also believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,9 which
requires that Exchange rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its
Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities.
In particular, the ETH Executing
Agent Subsidy Program is reasonable
because it incentivizes TPHs to conduct
executing agent operations willing to
accept orders from all customers during
ETH to increase customer accessibility
to the ETH trading session, which
removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. By
encouraging TPHs to conduct this type
6 15
7 15
U.S.C. 78f(b).
U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
8 Id.
9 15
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
15JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46124-46125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16763]
[[Page 46124]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-389; NRC-2015-0235]
Florida Power & Light Company; St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
has issued a director's decision with regard to a petition dated March
10, 2014, as supplemented, filed by the Southern Alliance for Clean
Energy (SACE, the petitioner), requesting that the NRC take action with
regard to St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2 (SL-2). The petitioner's requests
and the director's decision are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0235 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0235. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
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 a document is referenced.
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Director,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued director's decision
DD-16-02 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16167A086) on a petition filed by the
petitioner on March 10, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14071A431), as
supplemented.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplements (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14115A457, ML14115A458,
ML14125A514, ML14128A557, ML14143A412, ML14147A523, ML14310A811, and
ML14337A792).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner requested a hearing on what the petitioner
characterized as a de facto license amendment for the replacement of
the steam generators (SGs) in 2007 at SL-2, under Sec. 50.59 of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Changes, tests and
experiments.'' SACE requested that the NRC revoke the de facto license
amendment and stay the restart of SL-2 from the March 3, 2014,
refueling outage pending resolution of the hearing request. As the
basis for this request, the petitioner stated that Florida Power &
Light Company (the licensee) misapplied 10 CFR 50.59 and that the SG
replacement should have required a license amendment. The petitioner
also expressed concerns (1) related to the inspection of the
replacement SGs and (2) regarding the effects of the extended power
uprate (EPU) on SG tube inservice inspection and flow-induced effects
on the SG internals.
The Commission, by a memorandum and order (CLI-14-04) dated April
1, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14091B118), denied SACE's request to
stay the restart of SL-2 from the March 3, 2014, refueling outage.
Subsequently, by a memorandum and order (CLI-14-11) dated December 19,
2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14353A114), the Commission denied SACE's
hearing request, concluded that the NRC did not issue the licensee a de
facto license amendment, and referred SACE's safety concerns regarding
the replacement SGs at SL-2 to the NRC's Executive Director for
Operations for disposition under 10 CFR 2.206, ``Requests for action
under this subpart.'' Therefore, the staff treated these concerns in
SACE's hearing request as a petition for enforcement action pursuant to
10 CFR 2.206. On February 24, 2015, (ADAMS Accession No. ML15057A221)
and August 5, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15217A443), SACE informed the
NRC staff by telephone that it had decided not to request a meeting
with the NRC's Petition Review Board with regard to its 10 CFR 2.206
petition.
By letter dated September 28, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15205A313), the NRC acknowledged receipt of SACE's 10 CFR 2.206
petition and notified SACE of the NRC's acceptance of a portion of the
petition (i.e., one of SACE's safety concerns) for review in the 10 CFR
2.206 process. The portion of the petition that the NRC accepted for
review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process addresses the licensee's
application of 10 CFR 50.59 with respect to the change in a methodology
for evaluating SGs, as described in the updated final safety analysis
report (UFSAR). The letter also stated that the NRC staff was
evaluating whether the licensee properly applied 10 CFR 50.59 when it
changed the structural analysis codes as described in the UFSAR.
The staff's September 28, 2015, letter explained why the NRC did
not accept the remaining portion of the petition for review under the
10 CFR 2.206 process. This portion of the petition raised safety
concerns related to (1) inspection of the replacement SGs and (2) the
effects of the EPU on SG tube inservice inspection and flow-induced
effects on the SG internals. These concerns met the criteria for
rejection in NRC Management Directive 8.11, ``Review Process for 10 CFR
2.206 Petitions,'' dated October 25, 2000 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML041770328), because the concerns had already been reviewed,
evaluated, and resolved by the NRC staff.
By letters to the petitioner and licensee dated May 24, 2016 (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML16055A311 and ML16055A330, respectively), the NRC
issued the proposed director's decision (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16055A284) for comment. The petitioner and the licensee were asked to
provide comments within 15 days on any part of the proposed director's
decision that was considered to be erroneous or any issues in the
petition that were not addressed. The NRC staff did not receive any
comments on the proposed director's decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has denied
the petitioner's requested enforcement actions against the licensee.
The reasons for this decision are explained in director's decision DD-
16-02 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
The NRC will file a copy of the director's decision with the
Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.206. As provided by this regulation, the director's
decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days
after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own
motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.
Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of July 2016.
[[Page 46125]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William M. Dean,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-16763 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P