Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 54610-54622 [2016-19213]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54610-54622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19213]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0161]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from July 19, 2016, to August 1, 2016. The last 
biweekly notice was published on August 2, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 15, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 17, 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-2016-0161. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0161, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-

[[Page 54611]]

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-2016-0161.
     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 this 
document
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0161, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, 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 submissions into ADAMS.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, 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 if 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. If the Commission 
takes 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. If 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 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 to support its position on the issue. 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

[[Page 54612]]

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 the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by 
October 17, 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 10 CFR 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. Details regarding the opportunity to 
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if 
such sessions are scheduled.

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, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-
Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all 
adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail 
copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper 
copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance 
with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission to the NRC,'' which is available on the agency's 
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 Electronic Filing 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.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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

[[Page 54613]]

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 Electronic 
Filing 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 Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 7 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 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
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 hearing request and petition 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 (PVNGS), 
Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2016. Publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16182A171.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, by 
modifying the TS requirements to address Generic Letter (GL) 2008-01, 
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML072910759), as described in Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-
01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075).
    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 revises or adds [Surveillance Requirements 
(SRs)] that require verification that the [Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS)], the [Shutdown Cooling (SDC)] System, and the 
[Containment Spray (CS)] System, are not rendered inoperable due to 
accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance 
of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems 
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a 
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject 
systems continue to be capable of performing their safety functions 
and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, 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 accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the SDC System, and the CS System are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The 
proposed 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 proposed change does not impose any new or different 
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
    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 change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the SDC System, and the CS System are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The 
proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in 
order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their 
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive 
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the 
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability 
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there 
are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, 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 a 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.

[[Page 54614]]

    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.

    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: September 22, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15265A590.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would reflect the 
name change from Duke Energy Florida, Inc., to Duke Energy Florida, 
LLC.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated because no 
accident initiators or assumptions are affected. The proposed 
license transfer and name change is administrative in nature and has 
no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel 
qualifications, or the operation and maintenance of CR-3.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because no 
new accident initiators or assumptions are introduced by the 
proposed changes. The proposed license transfer and name change is 
administrative in nature and has no direct effect on any plant 
system, plant personnel qualifications, or operation and maintenance 
of CR-3.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety because the proposed change does not involve 
changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity 
or consequences, or reduce response or mitigation capabilities. The 
proposed license transfer and name change is administrative in 
nature and has no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel 
qualifications, or operation and maintenance of CR-3.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, 
Charlotte NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick 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

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400; Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North 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

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

    Date of amendment request: June 23, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16175A292.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by 
adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9 to the TSs for the 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Oconee Nuclear Station, and H.B. 
Robinson Steam Electric Plant. The same changes are added as LCO 3.0.10 
to the TSs for the Catawba Nuclear Station and McGuire Nuclear Station. 
For the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, the proposed amendment 
would modify TS requirements for unavailable barriers by adding LCO 
3.0.6 to the TSs. The proposed changes are consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-427, Revision 2, 
``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on 
Supported System OPERABILITY,'' subject to stated variations.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due 
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. 
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional 
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and 
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for 
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, 
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the 
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the 
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions 
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a 
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change 
will further minimize possible concerns.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when 
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is 
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or 
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further 
minimize possible concerns.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable 
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating 
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those 
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety 
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated 
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed 
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory 
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify 
the proposed TS changes. This application of

[[Page 54615]]

LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk 
assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the 
margin of safety is insignificant as indicated by the anticipated 
low levels of associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core 
damage probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early 
release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the 
Safety Evaluation.
    Therefore, this 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: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: June 17, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16172A010.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding a note permitting one low-
pressure coolant injection (LPCI) subsystem of residual heat removal 
(RHR) to be considered OPERABLE in Operating Conditions (OPCONs) 4 and 
5 during alignment and operation for decay heat removal, if capable of 
being manually realigned and not otherwise inoperable.
    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.
    There are no physical changes being made to the plant. The LPCI 
mode of RHR is an automatic ECCS [emergency core cooling system] 
function during OPCONs 4 and 5. LPCI mode is used in accident 
conditions to provide cooling and mitigate accident conditions. The 
proposed note would allow one LPCI subsystem to be considered 
operable during alignment and operation for decay heat removal if 
capable of being manually realigned and not otherwise inoperable. 
The required number of operable ECCS subsystems in OPCONs 4 and 5 
would not be reduced from the current requirement. Considering one 
LPCI subsystem as operable when aligned for SDC [shutdown cooling] 
does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident. 
Although it will take longer to realign manually from SDC to LPCI in 
the event of a drain-down event or accident, with the lower heat 
loads and temperatures in OPCONs 4 and 5, the operator will have 
sufficient margin to perform the realignment in the event of a 
draindown event prior to core uncovery.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The LPCI mode of RHR is an accident mitigator, not an initiator. 
This change will not reduce the number of required ECCS subsystems 
during OPCONs 4 and 5. The change will permit the operability of one 
LPCI subsystem while the components of that subsystem are aligned 
and operating in the Shutdown Cooling mode of RHR. The change does 
not alter current methods of plant operation nor does the change 
make a physical change to plant equipment resulting in an unanalyzed 
malfunction of equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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, which adds a note which will allow one LPCI 
subsystem to be considered operable during alignment and operation 
for decay heat removal if capable of being manually realigned and 
not otherwise inoperable, does not exceed or alter a setpoint, 
design basis or safety limit.
    The basis of TS section 3.5.2 is to ensure sufficient ECCS 
capacity to maintain core cooling in OPCONs 4 and 5. This proposed 
change does not affect the required number of ECCS subsystems during 
OPCONs 4 and 5; therefore adequate capability through subsystem 
redundancy is maintained. The amount of time required to obtain 
rated LPCI conditions is increased due to the manual realignment, 
from the Main Control Room, of the suction valves and restart of the 
RHR pump following LPCI injection conditions. However, this change 
will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded 
with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR [updated 
final safety analysis report] and is consistent with NUREG-1433.
    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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public 
Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer 
Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 28, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16181A097.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved 
for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier 
2 and Tier 2* Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information 
and conforming changes to the combined license Appendix C, in order to 
make changes to the design of certain components of the auxiliary 
building roof reinforcement and roof girders, and other related 
changes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The design functions of the auxiliary building roof are to 
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category 
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the auxiliary 
building. The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I structure 
and is designed for dead, live, thermal, pressure, safe shutdown 
earthquake loads, and loads due to postulated pipe breaks. The 
auxiliary building roof is designed for snow, wind, and tornado 
loads and postulated external missiles. The proposed changes to 
UFSAR descriptions and figures are intended to address changes in 
the detail design of the auxiliary building roof. The thickness and 
strength of the auxiliary building roof are not reduced. As a 
result, the design function of the auxiliary building structure is 
not adversely affected by the proposed changes. There is no change 
to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident 
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases 
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to 
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely 
affected, nor do the changes described create any new accident 
precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the

[[Page 54616]]

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 to UFSAR descriptions and figures are 
proposed to address changes in the detail design of the auxiliary 
building roof. The thickness, geometry, and strength of the 
structures are not adversely altered. The concrete and reinforcement 
materials are not altered. The properties of the concrete are not 
altered. The changes to the design details of the auxiliary building 
structure do not create any new accident precursors. As a result, 
the design function of the auxiliary building structure is not 
adversely affected by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The criteria and requirements of American Concrete Institute 
(ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 
provide a margin of safety to structural failure. The design of the 
auxiliary building structure conforms to applicable criteria and 
requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690 and therefore maintains the 
margin of safety. The proposed changes to the UFSAR address changes 
in the detail design of the auxiliary building roof. There is no 
change to design requirements of the auxiliary building structure. 
There is no change to the method of evaluation from that used in the 
design basis calculations. There is not a significant change to the 
in structure response spectra. No safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed 
changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety previously evaluated.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: July 11, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16193A488.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Combined Licenses (COL) Appendix A Technical 
Specifications (TS) and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in 
the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design 
Control Document Tier 2 information. Specifically, the proposed 
departures consist of changes to the UFSAR adding compensation for 
changes in reactor coolant density using the ``delta T'' power signal, 
to the reactor coolant flow input signal for the low reactor coolant 
flow trip function of the Reactor Trip System (RTS). Additionally, TS 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.3 is added to the surveillances 
required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip in TS Table 
3.3.1-1, Function 7.
    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 adds compensation, for changes in reactor 
coolant density using the [delta T] power signal, to the reactor 
coolant flow input signal for the low reactor coolant flow reactor 
trip function of the RTS. The proposed change also adds TS SR 
3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-
Low reactor trip specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares 
the calorimetric heat balance to the calculated [delta T] power in 
each Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) division every 24 
hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As such, the 
surveillance is also required to support operability of the Reactor 
Coolant Flow-Low trip function. This change to the low reactor 
coolant flow trip input signal assures that the reactor will trip on 
low reactor coolant flow when the requisite conditions are met, and 
minimize spurious reactor trips and the accompanying plant 
transients. The change to the COL Appendix A Table 3.3.1-1 aligns 
the surveillance of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip with the 
addition of the compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density 
using [delta T] power to the flow input signal to the trip. These 
changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that 
initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and 
components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of 
events.
    These changes have no adverse impact on the support, design, or 
operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The response of systems 
to postulated accident conditions is not adversely affected and 
remains within response time assumed in the accident analysis. There 
is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal 
operation or postulated accident conditions. Consequently, the plant 
response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not 
adversely affected, nor does the proposed change create any new 
accident precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, 
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events is created. The proposed change adds 
compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density using [delta T] 
power signal, to the reactor coolant flow input signal to the low 
reactor coolant flow reactor trip function of the RTS. The proposed 
change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the 
Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1. 
SR 3.3.1.3 compares the calorimetric heat balance to the calculated 
[delta T] power in each PMS division every 24 hours to assure 
acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As such, the surveillance is 
also required to support operability of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low 
trip function. The proposed change to the low reactor coolant flow 
reactor trip input signal does not alter the design function of the 
low flow reactor trip. The change to the COL Appendix A Table 3.3.1-
1 aligns the surveillance of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip with 
the addition of compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density 
using [delta T] power to the flow input signal to the trip. 
Consequently, because the low reactor coolant flow trip functions 
are unchanged, there are no adverse effects that could create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
    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 adds compensation, for changes in reactor 
coolant density using [delta T] power signal, to the reactor coolant 
flow input signal for the low reactor coolant flow trip function of 
the RTS. The proposed change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 to the 
surveillances required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip 
specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares the calorimetric 
heat balance to the calculated [delta T] power in each PMS division 
every 24 hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As 
such, the surveillance is also required to support operability of 
the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip function. The proposed changes do 
not alter any applicable

[[Page 54617]]

design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. 
Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus the 
margin of safety is not reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: March 11, 2016, as revised on July 12, 
2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML16071A404 and ML16196A099, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* 
and associated Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) (which includes the plant-specific DCD Tier 2 
information). Specifically, the requested amendment proposes to depart 
from UFSAR text and figures that describe the connections between floor 
modules and structural wall modules in the containment internal 
structures.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to 
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category 
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. 
The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet 
seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29.
    The change of the design details for the floor modules and the 
connections between floor modules and the structural wall modules, 
and the change to more clearly state the design requirement that 
these connections meet criteria and requirements of American 
Concrete Institute (ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel 
Construction (AISC) N690, do not have an adverse impact on the 
response of the nuclear island structures to safe shutdown 
earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or 
postulated accident conditions. The change of the design details for 
the connections between floor modules and the structural wall 
modules, and the clarification of design requirements for these 
connections, do not impact the support, design, or operation of 
mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or 
the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is 
no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal 
operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to 
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely 
affected, nor does the change described create any new accident 
precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is to revise design details for the floor 
modules and the connections between floor modules and the structural 
wall modules, and more clearly state the design requirement that 
these connections meet criteria and requirements of ACI 349 and AISC 
N690. The clarification and changes to the design details for the 
floor modules and the connections between floor modules and the 
structural wall modules do not change the design requirements of the 
nuclear island structures. The clarification and changes of the 
design details for the floor modules and the connections between 
floor modules and the structural wall modules do not change the 
design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and 
fluid systems. The clarification and changes of the design details 
for the floor modules and the connections between floor modules and 
the structural wall modules do not result in a new failure mechanism 
for the nuclear island structures or new accident precursors. As a 
result, the design function of the nuclear island structures is not 
adversely affected by the proposed change.
    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.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, no margin of 
safety is reduced. The acceptance limits for the design of seismic 
Category I structures are included in the codes and standards used 
for the design, analysis, and construction of the structures. The 
two primary codes for the seismic Category I structures are American 
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 and American Concrete 
Institute (ACI) 349. These codes provide a margin of safety to 
structural failure. The changes to the design of the connection of 
the floor module to the structural wall modules in the containment 
internal structures satisfy applicable provisions of AISC N690 and 
ACI 349 and supplemental requirements included in the UFSAR, and 
therefore maintain the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: June 16, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16168A399.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Technical Specification and Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 information to update the Protection and 
Safety Monitoring System (PMS) to align with the requirements in 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 603-1991, 
``IEEE Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power 
Generating Stations.'' IEEE 603-1991, Clause 6.6, ``Operating 
Bypasses,'' imposes requirements on the operating bypasses (i.e., 
``blocks'' and ``resets'') used for the AP1000 PMS. The PMS functional 
logic for blocking the source range neutron flux doubling signal shown 
in UFSAR Figure 7.2-1 (Sheet 3) requires revision to fully comply with 
this requirement.
    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's edits in 
square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 54618]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the PMS logic used to terminate an 
inadvertent boron dilution accident which results in a source range 
flux doubling signal. An inadvertent boron dilution is caused by the 
failure of the demineralized water transfer and storage system or 
chemical and volume control system, either by controller, operator 
or mechanical failure. The proposed changes to PMS and Technical 
Specification requirements do not adversely affect any of these 
accident initiators or introduce any component failures that could 
lead to a boron dilution event; thus the probabilities of accidents 
previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed changes do not 
adversely interface with or adversely affect any system containing 
radioactivity or affect any radiological material release source 
term; thus the radiological releases in an accident are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The accident analysis evaluates events involving a decrease in 
reactor coolant system boron concentration due to a malfunction of 
the chemical and volume control system in Modes 1 through 6. The 
Technical Specifications currently provide administrative controls 
to prevent a boron dilution event in Mode 6. The proposed change 
would provide additional PMS interlocks and administrative controls 
for prevention of a boron dilution event applicable in Modes 2, 3, 
4, and 5. The proposed changes to the PMS design do not adversely 
affect the design or operation of safety related equipment or 
equipment whose failure could initiate an accident from what is 
already described in the licensing basis. These changes do not 
adversely affect fission product barriers. No safety analysis or 
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 
the requested change.
    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 add additional restrictions on the 
source range flux doubling signal operational bypass to align it 
with the requirements in IEEE 603 and provide assurance that the 
protection logic is enabled whenever the plant is in a condition 
where protection might be required. These changes to the PMS design 
do not adversely impact nor affect the design, construction, or 
operation of any plant [structure, system, and components (SSCs)], 
including any equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or 
a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely 
affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no system function, 
design function, or equipment qualification will be adversely 
affected by the changes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50-482, 
Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: June 14, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16174A121.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone No. 8 completion date and 
the physical protection license condition.
    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 to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed 
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate 
the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed 
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, 
and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    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.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is 
administrative in nature, there are no changes to these established 
safety margins.
    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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

[[Page 54619]]

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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423, 
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2) and Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New 
London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 25 and June 29, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the MPS2 and 
MPS3 licensing basis by deleting the information in the final safety 
analysis reports pertaining to the severe line outage detection special 
protection system, updating the description of the tower structures 
associated with the four offsite transmission lines feeding Millstone 
Power Station (MPS), and describing how the current offsite power 
source configuration and design satisfies the requirements of General 
Design Criteria (GDC) 17, ``Electric Power Systems,'' and GDC 5, 
``Sharing of Structures, Systems, and Components.'' A new technical 
requirements manual (TRM) section, ``Offsite Line Power Sources,'' was 
added to the MPS2 and MPS3 TRM supporting the licensing basis change. 
Specifically, with one offsite transmission line nonfunctional, the TRM 
requirement would allow 72 hours to restore the nonfunctional line with 
a provision to allow up to 7 days (for Lines 310, 348, and 383) or up 
to 14 days (for Line 371/364) if specific TRM action requirements are 
met.
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 328 and 269. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16193A001; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 
61478). The supplemental letters dated February 25 and June 29, 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 July 28, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: May 8, 2015, as supplemented by letters 
dated January 28, February 25, March 23, March 29, and May 2, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to (1) allow the use of Dominion nuclear safety 
and reload core design methods; (2) allow the use of applicable 
departure from nucleate boiling ratio design limits for VIPRE-D; (3) 
update the approved reference methodologies cited in TS 6.9.1.6.b; (4) 
remove the base load mode of operation that is not a feature of the 
Dominion Relaxed Power Distribution Control power distribution control 
methodology; and (5) address the issues identified in Westinghouse 
Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-09-5), Rev. 1, NSAL-15-1, and 
Westinghouse Communication 06-IC-03. Additionally, the amendment 
relocates certain equations, supporting descriptions and surveillance 
requirements from the TSs to licensee-controlled documents.
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 268. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16131A728; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 2015 (80 
FR 52804). The supplemental letters dated January 28, February 25, 
March 23, March 29, and May 2, 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. A subsequent notice was published in 
the Federal Register on June 13, 2016 (81 FR 38226), to include the 
added clarification that the proposed amendment changes involve the 
relocation of TS information either to the TS Bases or the Core 
Operating Limits Report which are both licensee-controlled documents. 
There were no changes to the no significant hazards consideration 
determination as originally noticed.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 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; 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: July 15, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 1, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
facilities' Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSARs) to provide 
gap release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods that exceed the linear 
heat generation rate limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11, of 
Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for 
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' July 
2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792).
    Date of issuance: July 19, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 285 (Unit 1) and 281 (Unit 2), for the Catawba 
Nuclear Station; 289 (Unit 1) and 268 (Unit 2), for the McGuire Nuclear 
Station; and 401 (Unit 1), 403 (Unit 2), and 402 (Unit 3), for the 
Oconee Nuclear Station. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16159A336; documents related to these amendments

[[Page 54620]]

are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. 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 facilities as described in the UFSARs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 
61480). The supplemental letter dated February 1, 2016, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 25, 2016, and June 8, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the as-found 
lift setting tolerance for main steam line code safety valves, revised 
the nominal reactor trip setpoint on pressurizer water level, and 
revised pressurizer water level span in the Technical Specifications 
(TSs).
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance. The updated final safety analysis report 
(UFSAR) changes shall be implemented in the next periodic update to the 
UFSAR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).
    Amendment No.: A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16155A124; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR 
19646). The supplemental letters dated April 25 and June 8, 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 July 25, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: June 17, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 3, April 28, and July 12, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the 
Waterford 3 Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific 
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The 
amendment is in compliance with NRC-approved Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate 
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b.
    Date of issuance: July 26, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16159A419; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 2015 (80 
FR 52805). The supplements dated March 3, April 28, and July 12, 2016, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: August 19, 2014, as supplemented 
by letters dated January 20, March 31, April 30, August 24, October 9, 
October 30, November 9, and December 16, 2015, and February 12 and 
April 29, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment raised the Technical 
Specification (TS) temperature limit of the cooling water supplied to 
the plant from the ultimate heat sink from less than or equal to (<=) 
100 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to <= 102 [deg]F.
    Date of issuance: July 26, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit No. 1-189; Unit No. 2-189. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A438; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77: The 
amendment revised the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 
17088). The supplements contained clarifying information, did not 
change the scope of the requested change, 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 July 26, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 21 and July 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing Surveillance Requirement 
(SR) 4.8.1.1.2.g.1 related to draining each fuel oil storage tank, 
removing the accumulated sediment, and cleaning the tank. The 
amendments require the licensee to place the content of the SR in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to be controlled in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments.''
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 233 and 183. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16103A397; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments

[[Page 54621]]

revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 29, 2015 (80 
FR 58518). The supplemental letters dated January 21, and July 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 amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated July 28, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: August 6, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 17, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to relocate the reactor coolant system (RCS) 
pressure-temperature (P-T) limits from the TS limiting condition for 
operation to a new licensee-controlled document--the Pressure and 
Temperature Limits Report. The actual RCS P-T limit curves, as 
currently established in the CNS TS, and all associated parameters, 
which are valid through 32 effective full power years of facility 
operation, are not affected by the TS amendment.
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16158A022; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 3, 2015 (80 FR 
67802). The supplemental letter dated 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 NRC 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 July 25, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: March 11, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions, Shutdown Margin (SDM)'' 
consistent with the proposed changes in Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Change Traveler, TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown 
Margin [SDM] Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs.'' Prior to 
the amendment, the plant's SDM (i.e., the amount of reactivity by which 
the reactor is subcritical) was calculated using a shutdown moderator 
temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). This value was 
conservative for standard fuel designs. However, new, advanced boiling-
water reactor fuel designs can have a higher reactivity at moderator 
shutdown temperatures above 68 [deg]F. Therefore, the amendment 
implemented TSTF-535, Revision 0, which modified the TSs to require the 
SDM to be calculated at whatever moderator temperature produces the 
maximum reactivity with moderator temperature greater than or equal to 
68 [deg]F.
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16119A433; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR 
21600).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: September 8, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 13, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment replaced Technical 
Specification (TS) Figure 4.1-1, ``Site and Exclusion Area Boundaries 
and Low Population Zone,'' with a text description of the site in TS 
4.1, ``Site Location.'' In addition, typographical errors were 
corrected in Section 1.1, ``Definitions.''
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 255. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16146A749; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 
FR 69712). The supplemental letter dated June 13, 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 July 25, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: July 30, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Sections 1.1, ``Definitions,'' 3.4.9, ``[Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS)] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and 5.6, 
``Reporting Requirements,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel 
heatup and cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit curves with 
references to a P/T Limits Report (PTLR).
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 294. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16180A086; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 8, 2015 (80 FR 
76328). The supplemental by letters dated December 18, 2015, and 
February 19, March 11, and March 30, 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

[[Page 54622]]

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 July 25, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: September 2, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.3.b to require 
verification that the MNGP alternate nitrogen system required pressure 
be greater than or equal to 1060 psig [pounds per square inch gauge] 
instead of greater than or equal to 410 psig as previously stated.
    Date of issuance: August 1, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 190. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16196A303; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 
61483).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: December 31, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the license 
to permit use of the Fuel Rod Performance and Design 4 Thermal 
Conductivity Degradation (PAD4TCD) computer program for the second 
cycle of plant operation.
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 14 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 1. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16174A354; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 
10682).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of August, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-19213 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P