80 FR 65807 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 207 (October 27, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 207 (October 27, 2015)
| Page Range | 65807-65822 | |
| FR Document | 2015-27042 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 65807-65822] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-27042] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0242] 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 September 29 to October 9, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on October 13, 2015. DATES: Comments must be filed by November 27, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 28, 2015. 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0242. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. 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: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0242 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods: Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0242. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://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 [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0242, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit [[Page 65808]] 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 should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1- F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/ petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it [[Page 65809]] 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 December 28, 2015. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally- recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally- recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by December 28, 2015. B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E- Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, [[Page 65810]] 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 http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: August 28, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15244B179. Description of amendment request: The amendment provides a temporary extension to the Completion Time for Technical Specification 3.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS)--Operating,'' Required Action A.1. The temporary extension will be used to allow the licensee to effect an on-line repair of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pump motor air handling unit. 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 ECCS provides a mitigating function, and as such, it does not impact the probability of an accident. The consequences of an accident requiring the ECCS function will continue to be mitigated by the operable 1B RHR system train during the extended period in which the 1A RHR system train is considered inoperable. Each of the two RHR trains are redundant, so the 1B RHR pump is capable of performing the necessary mitigating function. Additionally, engineering evaluations, as documented in the [Engineering Change (EC)] process, demonstrate that the 1A RHR pump will continue to be capable of performing its mitigating ECCS function using a defense-in-depth measure that establishes alternate forced cooling to the room. As such, the proposed amendment does not result in an increase in consequences of an accident. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of this proposed license amendment request (LAR). No changes are being made to any SSC [structure, system, or component] that will introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. The defense-in-depth measure to install alternate forced cooling to the 1A RHR pump motor during the repair evolution has been analyzed and evaluated using the Duke Energy EC process. The EC concludes that the installation of alternate forced cooling equipment would not adversely impact other components such that a new or different accident scenario is created. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant and containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR. The proposed activity only impacts the amount of time that the 1A RHR system can be considered inoperable. The amount of inoperable time still remains small relative to the total operating time, and the 1A RHR train would still be considered available (i.e., capable of performing its ECCS function) during the period of extended inoperability. However, even if the train were considered unavailable, the total hours of unavailability would remain bounded by the limits established by the Maintenance Rule program. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: May 19, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated August 20, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15146A056 and ML15239B290, respectively. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments add a Reactor Protective System Nuclear Overpower--High Setpoint trip for three (3) reactor coolant pump operation to Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-1, ``Reactor Protective System Instrumentation.'' The existing overpower protection for three (3) reactor coolant pump operation is the Nuclear Overpower Flux/Flow/Imbalance trip function. The new setpoint provides an absolute setpoint that can be actuated regardless of the transient or Reactor Coolant System flow conditions and provides a [[Page 65811]] significant margin gain for the small steam line break accident. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment adds a high flux trip for three (3) Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) Operation by modifying the existing Nuclear Overpower-High Setpoint function in Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1-1 to delineate between a setpoint valid for four (4) RCP operation and three (3) RCP operation. TS 3.4.4 is modified to require the Nuclear Overpower--High Setpoint to be reset to less than or equal to the Allowable Value of Table 3.3.1-1 for three (3) RCPs operating. The proposed change provides automatic overpower protection when the plant is operating with three (3) RCPs. The existing overpower protection for three (3) RCP operation is the Nuclear Overpower Flux/Flow/Imbalance trip function. Providing a Nuclear Overpower flux setpoint provides an absolute setpoint that can be actuated regardless of the transient or RCS flow conditions. The proposed TS change does not modify the reactor coolant system pressure boundary, nor make any physical changes to the facility design, material, or construction standards. The probability of any design basis accident (DBA) is not affected by this change, nor are the consequences of any DBA significantly affected by this change. The proposed change does not involve changes to any structures, systems, or components (SSCs) that can alter the probability for initiating a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] event. This amendment request includes the adoption of Option A of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF-493-A, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting Safety System Setting] Functions,'' for the Nuclear Overpower--High Setpoint trip function of TS Table 3.3.1-1. The TS changes associated with the implementation of TSTF-493-A will provide additional assurance that the instrumentation setpoints for the Nuclear Overpower--High Setpoint trip function are maintained consistent with the setpoint methodology to ensure the required automatic trips and safety feature actuations occur such that the safety limits are not exceeded. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment adds a high flux trip for three (3) Reactor Coolant Pump Operation by modifying the existing Nuclear Overpower-High Setpoint function in TS Table 3.3.1-1 to delineate between a setpoint valid for four (4) RCP operation and three (3) RCP operation. This proposed change and the implementation of TSTF- 493-A do not alter the plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or make changes in methods governing normal plant operation. No new failure modes are identified, nor are any SSCs required to be operated outside the design bases. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not created. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment adds a high flux trip for three (3) Reactor Coolant Pump Operation by modifying the existing Nuclear Overpower-High Setpoint function in TS Table 3.3.1-1 to delineate between a setpoint valid for four (4) RCP operation and three (3) RCP operation. This proposed TS change and the implementation of TSTF-493-A do not involve: (1) A physical alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or different equipment; or (3) any impact on the fission product barriers or safety limits. The proposed change adds a new setpoint, which is more conservative than the existing high flux setpoint that initiates a protective action to provide protection for power excursion events initiated from three (3) RCP operation equivalent to that provided for four (4) RCP operation. 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202-1802. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington Date of amendment request: September 2, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15245A777. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9 to address the impact of unavailable barriers, not explicitly addressed in the TSs but required for operability of supported systems in TSs. The LCO 3.0.9 establishes conditions under which TS systems would remain operable when required physical barriers are not capable of providing their safety-related function. Also, the proposed amendment would replace the term ``train'' with the term ``division'' in LCO 3.0.8 to be consistent with the terminology proposed in LCO 3.0.9, which is editorial in nature. The proposed changes to the TS are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-427, ``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITY,'' Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061240055). The availability of the TS improvement and the model application was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration determination, which is presented below: Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated 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. Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From any Previously Evaluated 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 [[Page 65812]] 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. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety 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 [NRC Regulatory Guide 1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications,'' August 1998 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740176)]. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of 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 large early release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation [published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444)]. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the above analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15205A287. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the PNPS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date. The amendment would also revise the PNPS Facility Operating License No. DPR-35. 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 CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This 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 relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the CSP 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 relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and do 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 accident 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 CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Date of amendment request: August 18, 2015. A publically-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15231A097. Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise the reactor steam dome pressure specified in the technical specification (TS) safety limits. 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 reactor steam dome pressure in the CPS [Clinton Power Station, Unit 1], DNPS [Dresdent Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3], and QCNPS [Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2] Reactor Core Safety Limits TS 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed change is in accordance with an NRC approved critical power correlation [[Page 65813]] methodology, and as such, maintains required safety margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit from 785 psig [pounds per square inch gauge] to 685 psig is a change based upon previously approved documents and does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not introduce any new accident precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. Also, the change does not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition by General Electric determined that since the Minimum Critical Power Ratio improves during the PRFO [pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open)] transient, there is no decrease in the safety margin and therefore there is not a threat to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed change in reactor dome pressure supports the current safety margin, which protects the fuel cladding integrity during a depressurization transient, but does not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment, which remains unchanged. The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 is consistent with and within the capabilities of the applicable NRC approved critical power correlation for the fuel designs in use at CPS, DNPS, and QCNPS. No setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus, previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed change. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: July 2, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15198A153. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the technical specifications (TSs) related to communications and manipulator crane requirements. The licensee requested that these requirements be relocated to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and related procedures and be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments.'' 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 changes remove [from the TSs] the current necessity of establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures, which will have no impact on any safety related structures, systems or components. Once relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures, changes to establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits will be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. The probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident is not increased because these changes do not introduce any new potential accident initiating conditions. The consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected because the ability of the components to perform their required functions is not affected. 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 changes remove [from the TSs] the current necessity of establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures, which will have no impact on any safety related structures, systems or components. Once relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures, changes to establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits will be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. The proposed changes do not introduce new modes of plant operation and do not involve physical modifications to the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). There are no changes in the method by which any safety related plant structure, system, or component (SSC) performs its specified safety function. As such, the plant conditions for which the design basis accident analyses were performed remain valid. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of the proposed change. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any SSC as a result of the proposed changes. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to [[Page 65814]] perform their accident mitigation functions. The proposed changes remove [from the TSs] the current necessity of establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures, which will have no impact on any safety related structures, systems or components. Once relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures, changes to establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits will be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. The proposed changes do not physically alter any SSC. There will be no effect on those SSCs necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), or any other margin of safety. The applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney-- Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420. NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa Date of amendment request: August 18, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15246A445. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications (TSs) Section 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' by replacing the reference to the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' with a reference to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J,'' and conditions and limitations specified in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A, as the implementation document used by DAEC to implement the performance- based containment leakage rate testing program. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' for development of the DAEC performance-based containment testing program. NEI 94-01 allows, based on risk and performance, an extension of Type A and Type C containment leak test intervals. Implementation of these guidelines continues to provide adequate assurance that during design basis accidents, the primary containment and its components will limit leakage rates to less than the values assumed in the plant safety analyses. The findings of the DAEC risk assessment confirm the general findings of previous studies that the risk impact with extending the containment leak rate is small. Per the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.174, an extension of the leak test interval in accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A results in an estimated change within the very small change region. Since the change is implementing a performance-based containment testing program, the proposed amendment does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The requirement for containment leakage rate acceptance will not be changed by this amendment. Therefore, the containment will continue to perform its design function as a barrier to fission product releases. 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 implement a performance-based containment testing program, associated with integrated leakage rate test frequency, does not change the design or operation of structures, systems, or components of the plant. The proposed changes would continue to ensure containment integrity and would ensure operation within the bounds of existing accident analyses. There are no accident initiators created or affected by these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary containment) to perform their design functions during and following postulated accidents. The proposed change to implement a performance-based containment testing program, associated with integrated leakage rate test frequency, does not affect plant operations, design functions, or any analysis that verifies the capability of a structure, system, or component of the plant to perform a design function. In addition, this change does not affect safety limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained. This ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by implementation of a performance-based containment testing program. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Mr. James Petro, P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420. NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: May 4, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15124A911. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment and exemption identify portions of the licensing basis that would more appropriately be classified as Tier 2, specifically the Tier 2* information on Fire Area Figures 9A-1, 9A-2, 9A-3, 9A-4, 9A-5, and 9A- 201 in the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and [[Page 65815]] 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. With the reclassification, prior NRC approval would continue to be required for any safety significant changes to the Fire Area Figures because any revisions to that information would follow the Tier 2 change process provided in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section VIII.B.5. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment does not modify the design, construction, or operation of any plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs), nor does it change any procedures or method of control for any SSCs. Because the proposed amendment does not change the design, construction, or operation of any SSCs, it does not adversely affect any design function as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated. Similarly, because the proposed amendment does not alter the design or operation of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs, the proposed amendment does not represent a change to the radiological effects of an accident, and therefore, does not involve an increase in the 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 amendment would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment is not a modification, addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is the reclassification of information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Because the proposed amendment only reclassifies information and does not change the design, construction, or operation of the nuclear plant or any plant operations, the amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment is not a modification, addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is the reclassification of information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 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 Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50- 364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request: August 31, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15261A673. Description of amendment request: The proposed change would eliminate the current requirement to perform the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) autoclosure interlock Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.14.2 and revise Action Condition C to eliminate the RHR autoclosure interlock from the Action 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 amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The two motor-operated gate valves located in each RHR System suction line are normally-closed to maintain the low pressure RHR System (design pressure of 600 psig) isolated from the high pressure [reactor coolant system] RCS (normal operating pressure of 2235 psig). An [autoclosure interlock] ACI was provided to isolate the low pressure RHR System from the RCS when the pressure increases above the ACI setpoint. However, spurious ACI actuation has resulted in RHR System isolation and subsequent loss of decay heat removal capability. The removal of the ACI feature will preclude this inadvertent isolation, thus increasing the likelihood that RHR will be available to remove decay heat. The addition of a control room alarm to alert the operator that a suction/isolation valve(s) is not fully closed when the RCS pressure is above the alarm setpoint and administrative procedures will ensure that the RHR System will be isolated from the RCS, if the RCS pressure increases above the alarm setpoint, which will decrease the likelihood of an interfacing system [Loss-of-Coolant Accident] LOCA. Therefore, the performance of the RHR System would not be adversely affected by the ACI deletion and the RHR suction isolation valve alarm installation. The RHR ACI provides automatic closure to the RHR System suction isolation valves on high RCS pressure; however, rapid overpressure protection of the RHR System is provided by the RHR relief valves and not by the slow acting suction isolation valves. This RHR System overpressure protection is not affected by the removal of the ACI, this feature also serves to decrease the likelihood of an interfacing system LOCA. Thus, the RHR System integrity will not be affected by the removal of the ACI feature. In addition, the removal of the ACI feature does not adversely affect any fission barrier, alter any assumptions made in the radiological consequences evaluations, or affect the mitigation of radiological consequences. The impact of ACI removal on RHR shutdown cooling, low temperature overpressure protection, and interfacing system LOCA initiating event frequency was assessed. For each of these areas that were assessed, it was concluded that the removal of ACI and the accompanying plant changes provides a benefit to plant safety. With the deletion of the ACI, there is no longer any potential for spurious automatic closure of a RHR System suction isolation valve resulting in inadvertent RHR System isolation and loss of shutdown cooling. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The removal of the RHR System ACI, and corresponding TS requirements, does not result in the initiation of any accident nor create any new credible limiting single failures. The removal of the ACI eliminates the potential for spurious circuitry actuation causing isolation of the RHR system. Furthermore, the addition of an alarm to alert the operator that a suction valve is not fully closed when RCS pressure is above the alarm setpoint reduces the likelihood that the RHR system will be exposed to high pressure conditions. These modifications and the resulting elimination of the ACI TS Surveillance Requirement will not result in the RHR system being operated in any unanalyzed modes, either during normal or accident conditions. Also, the AHA system will continue to be maintained and surveilled as it is currently. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed change does not [[Page 65816]] challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system. Therefore, it is concluded that 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. Removal of the ACI interlock, and its corresponding TS Surveillance Requirement, does not alter or prevent any plant response such that the margin of safety to any applicable acceptance criteria is significantly decreased. In fact, the addition of a control room alarm that identifies that the suction valve is not fully open, together with the existing overpressure alarm, ensures that the margin of safety to an AHA overpressure condition is not significantly reduced. Furthermore, the actuation of safety-related components and the response of plant systems to accident scenarios are not affected, and thus will remain as assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change will not adversely affect the operation or safety function of equipment assumed in the safety analysis. For the reasons noted above, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involves a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. 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: September 1, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15244A602). Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4. The requested amendment proposes to revise the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plant-specific emergency planning inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria in Appendix C of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLs, to remove the copy of Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 7.5-1, ``Post-Accident Monitoring System,'' from Appendix C of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLs. 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 VEGP [Units] 3 and 4 emergency planning inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) provide assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations. The proposed change to remove the copy of UFSAR Table 7.5-1 from Appendix C of the VEGP [Units 3 and 4] COLs does not affect the design of a system, structure, or component (SSC) used to meet the design bases of the nuclear plant. Nor do the changes affect the construction or operation of the nuclear plant itself, so there is no change to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Removing the copy of UFSAR Table 7.5-1 from Appendix C of the COLs does not affect prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. No safety-related SSC or function is adversely affected. The changes do not involve nor interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. Because the changes do not involve any safety-related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. 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 VEGP [Units] 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC provide assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations. The changes do not affect the design of an SSC used to meet the design bases of the nuclear plant, nor do the changes affect the construction or operation of the nuclear plant. Consequently, there is no new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The changes do not affect safety-related equipment, nor do they affect equipment which, if it failed, could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. In addition, the changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment. No analysis is adversely affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification is adversely affected by the changes. This activity will not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, nor create a new sequence of events that would result in significant fuel cladding failures. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The VEGP [Units] 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC provide assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations. The changes do not affect the assessments or the plant itself. The changes do not adversely interface with safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety analysis, design basis limit or acceptance criterion are challenged or exceeded by the proposed change. 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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, City of Dalton, GA Date of amendment request: August 31, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession Package No. ML15246A045. Description of amendment request: The amendments request NRC approval of a standard emergency plan for all Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., sites and site-specific annexes. 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: [[Page 65817]] 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes have no effect on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors, and do not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of the emergency response organization to perform its intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The ability of the emergency response organization to respond adequately to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.A.9. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes will not change the design function or operation of SSCs. The changes do not impact the accident analysis. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. As demonstrated by the SNC staffing analysis performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.A.9, the proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of the emergency response organization to perform its intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are associated with the Emergency Plan and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected. The Standard Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary response staff for emergencies as demonstrated by staffing and functional analyses including the necessary timeliness of performing major tasks for the functional areas of the Emergency Plan. The proposed changes do not adversely affect SNC's ability to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E and the emergency planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. III. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration. For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (WF3) St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request: July 2, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated August 14, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15197A106 and ML15226A346, respectively. Brief description of amendment: This notice is being reissued in its entirety to remove information that was inadvertently included in the notice published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2015 (80 FR 58520), for WF3. The proposed amendment will modify the Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3.4, ``Control Element Assembly [CEA] Drop Time'' and Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 15, ``Accident Analyses.'' The proposed amendment would change TS 3.1.3.4 to revise the arithmetic average of all CEA drop times to be less than or equal to 3.5 seconds. Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register: September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53892). Expiration date of individual notice: October 8, 2015 (public comments); and November 9, 2015 (hearing requests). IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commissions 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. DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan Date of amendment request: October 21, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated June 18, and July 28, 2015. Description of amendment: The amendment revised the emergency action level scheme for Fermi 2 based [[Page 65818]] on the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' dated November 2012. Date of issuance: September 29, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 202. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15233A084; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 23, 2014 (79 FR 77045). The supplemental letters dated June 18, and July 28, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: None. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request: June 10, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated October 9, and December 31, 2014, and January 30, 2015. Brief description of amendment: By order dated August 14, 2015, as published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51329), the NRC approved a direct license transfer for Facility Operating License No. NPF-47 for the River Bend Station, Unit 1. This amendment reflects the direct transfer of the license to Entergy Louisiana, LLC. Date of issuance: October 1, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 189. A publicly-available version of the amendment and the order are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15265A116 and ML15146A410, respectively; documents related to this amendment are listed in the safety evaluation (SE) enclosed with the order dated August 14, 2015. Subsequent to the issuance of the order, the licensee submitted a letter dated September 23, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15268A338). This letter provided additional notifications of regulatory approvals and the closing transaction date, as was required by the order. Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51329). The supplements dated October 9, and December 31, 2014, January 30, and September 23, 2015, contained clarifying information, did not expand the application beyond the scope of the notice as originally published in the Federal Register, and did not affect the applicability of the generic no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated August 14, 2015. Comments received: Yes. The comments received on the license transfer request are addressed in the SE dated August 14, 2015. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont Date of amendment request: March 28, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated April 24, June 9, June 11, and August 13, 2014; and May 4, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the renewed facility operating license and the associated technical specifications to be consistent with the permanent cessation of reactor operations and permanent defueling of the reactor. Date of issuance: October 7, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 263. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15117A551; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8358). The supplemental letters dated April 24, June 9, June 11, and August 13, 2014; and May 4, 2015, 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 this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: July 23, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated July 28, 2015, and August 25, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the technical specifications (TSs) to allow for the temporary operation of the borated water storage tank (BWST) under administrative and design controls while connected to seismic Class II piping. This change would support necessary cleanup and surveillance activities associated with the TMI Fall 2015 Refueling Outage and Fuel Cycle 21 operation. Date of issuance: October 1, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 7 days. Amendment No.: 289. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15225A158; documents related to this amendment are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2015 (80 FR 47529). The supplemental letter dated August 25, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1, 2015. 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: December 5, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 439, Revision 2, ``Eliminate Second [[Page 65819]] Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation].'' The second completion times associated with TS 3.6.2.1, ``Containment Spray and Cooling Systems,'' were deleted. Date of Issuance: October 5, 2015. Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos. 228 and 178. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15251A094; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR 5801). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: October 7, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the scheduled completion date for Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security Plan implementation schedule and License Condition 3.E in Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41. Date of issuance: September 28, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 266 and 261. The amendments are in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15233A379; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 2015 (80 FR 535). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No.50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of amendment request: July 13, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs). The amendment added a note to TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1.3.4, which requires verification that residual heat removal loop operations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Date of issuance: October 6, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 150. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15231A144; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46350). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request: October 17, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated February 19, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the DCPP Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone h full implementation schedule as set forth in the CSP implementation schedule. Date of issuance: September 30, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP implementation schedule as approved by the NRC staff with this license amendment will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--220; Unit 2--222. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15245A542; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18659). The supplemental letter dated February 19, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 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: May 26, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated May 28, 2015 and as revised by letters dated June 9, and June 29, 2015. Description of amendment: The amendment authorized changes to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report on the applicability of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, ``Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities,'' to allow use of the American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1-2000, ``Structural Welding Code-Steel,'' in lieu of the AWS D1.1-1992 edition identified in AISC N690-1994. Date of issuance: September 1, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 30. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15224A750; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 8, 2015 (80 FR 32413). However, the June 29, 2015, letter revised the application including the No Significant Hazard Determination. Therefore, the staff issued a revised notice on July 9, 2015, (80 FR 39450). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated September 1, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The comments were addressed in the Safety Evaluation. [[Page 65820]] Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50- 362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California Date of amendment request: November 12, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated August 27, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the completion date for Milestone 8, full implementation, of the Cyber Security Plan from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Date of issuance: October 1, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-231; Unit 3-224. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15209A935; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18659). The supplemental letter dated August 27, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. 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: May 26, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated May 28, 2015, and as revised by letters dated June 9, and June 29, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the Combined Licenses (COLs) by revising the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report on the applicability of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, ``Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities,'' to allow use of a newer version of the American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1-200, ``Structural Welding Code- Steel,'' in lieu of the AWS D1.1-1992 edition identified in AISC N690- 1994. The use of AWS D1.1-2000 applies to future and installed structural welding. Date of issuance: August 31, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 37. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15215A288; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32624). A revised notice was issued on July 9, 2015 (80 FR 39454) as the June 29, 2015, letter revised the scope of the amendment request and the licensee revised the original no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The comments were addressed in the Safety Evaluation. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50- 425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: May 19, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the minimum indicated nitrogen cover pressure required per the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Technical Specifications (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.3 from the current requirement of 626 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) back to the previous requirement of 617 psig based on installation of updated instrumentation. Date of issuance: October 5, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 177 and 158. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15222A753; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43129). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES-1 and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: August 11, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated April 6, 2015, and July 16, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed SSES-1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' specifically revising the P/T Limits curves. The revision provides P/T Limits curves that extend into the vacuum region (e.g., below 0 pounds per square inch gauge) to mitigate the risk of a level transient during startup, account for updated surveillance material and fluence data for the reactor vessel beltline materials, and replace the current 35.7 and 30.2 effective full power year (EFPY) P/T Limits curves for SSES-1 and 2, respectively, with new curves that are valid for 40 EFPY. This license amendment request was submitted by PPL Susquehanna, LLC; however, on June 1, 2015, the NRC staff issued an amendment changing the name on the SSES license from PPL Susquehanna, LLC to Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (ADAMS Accession No. ML15054A066). These amendments were issued subsequent to an order issued on April 10, 2015, to SSES, approving an indirect license transfer of the SSES license to Talen Energy Corporation (ADAMS Accession No. ML15058A073). Date of issuance: September 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. Amendment Nos.: 263 (Unit 1) and 244 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15243A140; documents related to these amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: Amendments revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70217). The supplemental letters dated April 6, 2015, and July 16, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, expanded the scope of the application as originally noticed, and changed the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. As such, the staff published a subsequent [[Page 65821]] notice in the Federal Register on July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45559). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated August 19, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times,'' based on Technical Specification Task Force Change Traveler-460, Revision 0, ``Control Rod Scram Time Testing Frequency,'' revising the frequency of Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2 regarding control rod scram time testing from ``120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1'' to ``200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.'' Implementation of this amendment will also include incorporation of the revised acceptance criterion value of 7.5 percent for ``slow'' control rods into the TS Bases. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 289. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15251A540; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32629). The supplemental letter dated August 19, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: November 22, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated December 16, 2014; June 19, 2015; July 24, 2015; August 5, 2015; and August 31, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments converted the current technical specifications to the improved technical specifications (ITSs) and relocate certain requirements to other licensee-controlled documents. The ITSs are based on NUREG-1431, Rev. 3.0, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' Rev. 3.0; ``NRC Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' dated July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132); and 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications.'' Technical Specification Task Force changes were also incorporated. The purpose of the conversion is to provide clearer and more readily understandable requirements in the technical specifications for SQN to ensure safe operation. In addition, the amendments include a number of issues that were considered beyond the scope of NUREG-1431. Date of issuance: September 30, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 334--Unit 1 and 327--Unit 2. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15238B499; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79. The amendments revised the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35807). The supplemental letters dated December 16, 2014, June 19, July 24, August 5, and August 31, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: August 1, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated April 21, 2014, January 29, 2015, and June 12, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Limiting Condition for Operation for the Alternating Current Sources--Operating in Technical Specification 3.8.1 to provide additional time to restore an inoperable offsite circuit, modify Surveillance Requirements, and modify the current licensing basis, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for the available maintenance feeder for the Common Station Service Transformers A and B. Date of issuance: September 29, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented after the issuance of the Facility Operating License for Unit 2. Amendment No.: 103. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15225A094; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64547). The supplemental letters dated April 21, 2014, January 29 and June 12, 2015, provided additional information that expanded the scope of the application as originally noticed. A notice published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2015, supersedes the original notice in its entirety to update the expanded scope of the amendment description and include the staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2015. No significant hazards consideration determination comments received: No. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri Date of application for amendment: October 2, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated July 6, July 16, and August 31, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopted the NRC- endorsed Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Methodology for the Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non- Passive Reactors.'' Date of issuance: October 7, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 212. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15251A493; documents related to this amendment [[Page 65822]] are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the Emergency Action Level Technical Bases Document. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR 5813). The supplemental letters dated July 6, July 16, and August 31, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of October 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2015-27042 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices 65807
law, no person shall generally be subject Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: Regulatory Commission, Washington,
to penalty for failing to comply with a 8 hours. DC 20555–0001.
collection of information that does not Total Estimated Annual Other Costs For additional direction on obtaining
display a valid Control Number. See 5 Burden: $1,464. information and submitting comments,
CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL Dated: October 21, 2015. see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
obtains OMB approval for this Michel Smyth, Submitting Comments’’ in the
information collection under Control SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
Departmental Clearance Officer.
Number 1210–0100. this document.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot [FR Doc. 2015–27255 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
be for more than three (3) years without BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
renewal, and the current approval for Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
this collection is scheduled to expire on Regulatory Commission, Washington,
October 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to NUCLEAR REGULATORY
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
extend PRA authorization for this COMMISSION
2242, email: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov.
information collection for three (3) more [NRC–2015–0242]
years, without any change to existing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
requirements. The DOL notes that Biweekly Notice; Applications and I. Obtaining Information and
existing information collection Amendments to Facility Operating Submitting Comments
requirements submitted to the OMB Licenses and Combined Licenses
receive a month-to-month extension A. Obtaining Information
Involving No Significant Hazards
while they undergo review. For Considerations Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–
additional substantive information 0242 when contacting the NRC about
about this ICR, see the related notice AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory the availability of information for this
published in the Federal Register on Commission. action. You may obtain publicly-
June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34696). ACTION: Biweekly notice. available information related to this
Interested parties are encouraged to action by any of the following methods:
send comments to the OMB, Office of SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2)
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
Information and Regulatory Affairs at of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
http://www.regulations.gov and search
the address shown in the ADDRESSES amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0242.
section within thirty (30) days of Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
publication of this notice in the Federal Access and Management System
Register. In order to help ensure The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
appropriate consideration, comments available documents online in the
should mention OMB Control Number issued, or proposed to be issued, and
grants the Commission the authority to ADAMS Public Documents collection at
1210–0100. The OMB is particularly http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
interested in comments that: issue and make immediately effective
adams.html. To begin the search, select
• Evaluate whether the proposed any amendment to an operating license
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
collection of information is necessary or combined license, as applicable,
upon a determination by the select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
for the proper performance of the Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
functions of the agency, including Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards please contact the NRC’s Public
whether the information will have Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
practical utility; consideration, notwithstanding the
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
• Evaluate the accuracy of the pendency before the Commission of a
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
agency’s estimate of the burden of the request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all ADAMS accession number for each
proposed collection of information, document referenced (if it is available in
including the validity of the notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from September ADAMS) is provided the first time that
methodology and assumptions used; it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
• Enhance the quality, utility, and 29 to October 9, 2015. The last biweekly
INFORMATION section
clarity of the information to be notice was published on October 13,
collected; and 2015. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
• Minimize the burden of the purchase copies of public documents at
DATES: Comments must be filed by the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
collection of information on those who November 27, 2015. A request for a
are to respond, including through the White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
hearing must be filed by December 28, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
use of appropriate automated, 2015.
electronic, mechanical, or other B. Submitting Comments
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, by any of the following methods (unless Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–
e.g., permitting electronic submission of this document describes a different 0242, facility name, unit number(s),
responses. method for submitting comments on a application date, and subject in your
Agency: DOL–EBSA. specific subject): comment submission.
Title of Collection: Definition of Plan • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to The NRC cautions you not to include
Assets—Participant Contributions. http://www.regulations.gov and search identifying or contact information that
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
OMB Control Number: 1210–0100. for Docket ID NRC–2015–0242. Address you do not want to be publicly
Affected Public: Private Sector— questions about NRC dockets to Carol disclosed in your comment submission.
businesses or other for-profits. Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; The NRC posts all comment
Total Estimated Number of email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. submissions at http://
Respondents: 1. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, www.regulations.gov as well as entering
Total Estimated Number of Office of Administration, Mail Stop: the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Responses: 251. OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear The NRC does not routinely edit
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/1.svg)
![65810 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire a significant reduction in the margin of
and Adjudications Staff. Participants Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, safety?
Response: No.
filing a document in this manner are Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Margin of safety is related to the
responsible for serving the document on Date of amendment request: August confidence in the ability of the fission
all other participants. Filing is 28, 2015. A publicly-available version is product barriers to perform their design
considered complete by first-class mail in ADAMS under Accession No. functions during and following an accident
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or ML15244B179. situation. These barriers include the fuel
by courier, express mail, or expedited cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the
Description of amendment request:
containment system. The performance of the
delivery service upon depositing the The amendment provides a temporary fuel cladding, reactor coolant and
document with the provider of the extension to the Completion Time for containment systems will not be impacted by
service. A presiding officer, having Technical Specification 3.5.2, the proposed LAR.
granted an exemption request from ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling Systems The proposed activity only impacts the
using E-Filing, may require a participant (ECCS)—Operating,’’ Required Action amount of time that the 1A RHR system can
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding A.1. The temporary extension will be be considered inoperable. The amount of
used to allow the licensee to effect an inoperable time still remains small relative to
officer subsequently determines that the
on-line repair of the Residual Heat the total operating time, and the 1A RHR
reason for granting the exemption from train would still be considered available (i.e.,
use of E-Filing no longer exists. Removal (RHR) pump motor air
capable of performing its ECCS function)
handling unit. during the period of extended inoperability.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory Basis for proposed no significant
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s However, even if the train were considered
hazards consideration determination: unavailable, the total hours of unavailability
electronic hearing docket which is As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the would remain bounded by the limits
available to the public at http:// licensee has provided its analysis of the established by the Maintenance Rule
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded issue of no significant hazards program.
pursuant to an order of the Commission, consideration, which is presented Therefore, it is concluded that the
or the presiding officer. Participants are below. proposed changes do not involve a
requested not to include personal significant reduction in the margin of safety.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
privacy information, such as social a significant increase in the probability or The NRC staff has reviewed the
security numbers, home addresses, or consequences of an accident previously licensee’s analysis and, based on this
home phone numbers in their filings, evaluated? review, it appears that the three
unless an NRC regulation or other law Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
requires submission of such The ECCS provides a mitigating function, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
and as such, it does not impact the proposes to determine that the
information. However, in some
probability of an accident. The consequences amendment request involves no
instances, a request to intervene will of an accident requiring the ECCS function
require including information on local will continue to be mitigated by the operable
significant hazards consideration.
residence in order to demonstrate a 1B RHR system train during the extended Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols,
proximity assertion of interest in the period in which the 1A RHR system train is Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy
proceeding. With respect to copyrighted considered inoperable. Each of the two RHR Corporation, 526 South Church Street—
works, except for limited excerpts that trains are redundant, so the 1B RHR pump EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
is capable of performing the necessary NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory mitigating function. Pascarelli.
filings and would constitute a Fair Use Additionally, engineering evaluations, as
application, participants are requested documented in the [Engineering Change (EC)] Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
not to include copyrighted materials in process, demonstrate that the 1A RHR pump Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
their submission. will continue to be capable of performing its Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
mitigating ECCS function using a defense-in- 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Petitions for leave to intervene must depth measure that establishes alternate
be filed no later than 60 days from the forced cooling to the room. Date of amendment request: May 19,
date of publication of this notice. As such, the proposed amendment does 2015, as supplemented by letter dated
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave not result in an increase in consequences of August 20, 2015. Publicly-available
to intervene, and motions for leave to an accident. versions are in ADAMS under
file new or amended contentions that 2. Does the proposed amendment create Accession Nos. ML15146A056 and
the possibility of a new or different kind of ML15239B290, respectively.
are filed after the 60-day deadline will accident from any accident previously
not be entertained absent a Description of amendment request:
evaluated? The proposed amendments add a
determination by the presiding officer Response: No.
that the filing demonstrates good cause No new accident causal mechanisms are
Reactor Protective System Nuclear
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR created as a result of this proposed license Overpower—High Setpoint trip for three
2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). amendment request (LAR). No changes are (3) reactor coolant pump operation to
being made to any SSC [structure, system, or Technical Specification Table 3.3.1–1,
For further details with respect to component] that will introduce any new ‘‘Reactor Protective System
these license amendment applications, accident causal mechanisms. The defense-in- Instrumentation.’’ The existing
see the application for amendment depth measure to install alternate forced overpower protection for three (3)
which is available for public inspection cooling to the 1A RHR pump motor during
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
reactor coolant pump operation is the
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For the repair evolution has been analyzed and Nuclear Overpower Flux/Flow/
additional direction on accessing evaluated using the Duke Energy EC process.
The EC concludes that the installation of
Imbalance trip function. The new
information related to this document, alternate forced cooling equipment would setpoint provides an absolute setpoint
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and not adversely impact other components such that can be actuated regardless of the
Submitting Comments’’ section of this that a new or different accident scenario is transient or Reactor Coolant System
document. created. flow conditions and provides a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices 65811
significant margin gain for the small Overpower-High Setpoint function in TS required physical barriers are not
steam line break accident. Table 3.3.1–1 to delineate between a setpoint capable of providing their safety-related
Basis for proposed no significant valid for four (4) RCP operation and three (3) function. Also, the proposed
hazards consideration determination: RCP operation. This proposed change and the
amendment would replace the term
implementation of TSTF–493–A do not alter
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the ‘‘train’’ with the term ‘‘division’’ in LCO
the plant configuration (no new or different
licensee has provided its analysis of the type of equipment will be installed) or make 3.0.8 to be consistent with the
issue of no significant hazards changes in methods governing normal plant terminology proposed in LCO 3.0.9,
consideration, which is presented operation. No new failure modes are which is editorial in nature.
below: identified, nor are any SSCs required to be The proposed changes to the TS are
1. Does the proposed amendment involve operated outside the design bases. consistent with the NRC-approved
a significant increase in the probability or Therefore, the possibility of a new or Technical Specification Task Force
consequences of an accident previously different kind of accident from any kind of (TSTF) Standard Technical
evaluated? accident previously evaluated is not created. Specification change traveler TSTF–427,
Response: No. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
‘‘Allowance for Non-Technical
The proposed amendment adds a high flux a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No. Specification Barrier Degradation on
trip for three (3) Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) Supported System OPERABILITY,’’
Operation by modifying the existing Nuclear The proposed amendment adds a high flux
Overpower-High Setpoint function in trip for three (3) Reactor Coolant Pump Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No.
Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1–1 to Operation by modifying the existing Nuclear ML061240055). The availability of the
delineate between a setpoint valid for four (4) Overpower-High Setpoint function in TS TS improvement and the model
RCP operation and three (3) RCP operation. Table 3.3.1–1 to delineate between a setpoint application was published in the
TS 3.4.4 is modified to require the Nuclear valid for four (4) RCP operation and three (3) Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71
Overpower—High Setpoint to be reset to less RCP operation. This proposed TS change and FR 58444), as part of the Consolidated
than or equal to the Allowable Value of Table the implementation of TSTF–493–A do not
Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP).
3.3.1–1 for three (3) RCPs operating. The involve: (1) A physical alteration of the
Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or
Basis for proposed no significant
proposed change provides automatic hazards consideration determination:
overpower protection when the plant is different equipment; or (3) any impact on the
operating with three (3) RCPs. The existing fission product barriers or safety limits. The As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
overpower protection for three (3) RCP proposed change adds a new setpoint, which licensee affirmed the applicability of the
operation is the Nuclear Overpower Flux/ is more conservative than the existing high model no significant hazards
Flow/Imbalance trip function. Providing a flux setpoint that initiates a protective action consideration determination, which is
Nuclear Overpower flux setpoint provides an to provide protection for power excursion presented below:
absolute setpoint that can be actuated events initiated from three (3) RCP operation
regardless of the transient or RCS flow equivalent to that provided for four (4) RCP Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not
conditions. The proposed TS change does not operation. Involve a Significant Increase in the
modify the reactor coolant system pressure Therefore, the proposed change does not Probability or Consequences of an Accident
boundary, nor make any physical changes to involve a significant reduction in a margin of Previously Evaluated
the facility design, material, or construction safety. The proposed change allows a delay time
standards. The probability of any design for entering a supported system technical
basis accident (DBA) is not affected by this
The NRC staff has reviewed the specification (TS) when the inoperability is
change, nor are the consequences of any DBA licensee’s analysis and, based on this due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is
significantly affected by this change. The review, it appears that the three assessed and managed. The postulated
proposed change does not involve changes to standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are initiating events which may require a
any structures, systems, or components satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff functional barrier are limited to those with
(SSCs) that can alter the probability for proposes to determine that the low frequencies of occurrence, and the
initiating a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] amendment request involves no overall TS system safety function would still
event. This amendment request includes the significant hazards consideration. be available for the majority of anticipated
adoption of Option A of Technical challenges. Therefore, the probability of an
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols,
Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF–493– accident previously evaluated is not
A, Revision 4, ‘‘Clarify Application of Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy significantly increased, if at all. The
Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street— consequences of an accident while relying on
Safety System Setting] Functions,’’ for the DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202–1802. the allowance provided by proposed LCO
Nuclear Overpower—High Setpoint trip NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 3.0.9 are no different than the consequences
function of TS Table 3.3.1–1. The TS changes Pascarelli. of an accident while relying on the TS
associated with the implementation of TSTF– required actions in effect without the
493–A will provide additional assurance that Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
the instrumentation setpoints for the Nuclear Columbia Generating Station, Benton Therefore, the consequences of an accident
Overpower—High Setpoint trip function are County, Washington previously evaluated are not significantly
maintained consistent with the setpoint affected by this change. The addition of a
Date of amendment request:
methodology to ensure the required requirement to assess and manage the risk
automatic trips and safety feature actuations September 2, 2015. A publicly-available
introduced by this change will further
occur such that the safety limits are not version is in ADAMS under Accession minimize possible concerns.
exceeded. No. ML15245A777. Therefore, this change does not involve a
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not Description of amendment request: significant increase in the probability or
significantly increase the probability or The proposed amendment would revise consequences of an accident previously
consequences of an accident previously the Technical Specifications (TSs) by evaluated.
evaluated. adding Limiting Condition for
2. Does the proposed amendment create Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Operation (LCO) 3.0.9 to address the Create the Possibility of a New or Different
the possibility of a new or different kind of
impact of unavailable barriers, not Kind of Accident From any Previously
accident from any accident previously
evaluated? explicitly addressed in the TSs but Evaluated
Response: No. required for operability of supported The proposed change does not involve a
The proposed amendment adds a high flux systems in TSs. The LCO 3.0.9 physical alteration of the plant (no new or
trip for three (3) Reactor Coolant Pump establishes conditions under which TS different type of equipment will be installed).
Operation by modifying the existing Nuclear systems would remain operable when Allowing delay times for entering supported
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/5.svg)
![65812 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices
system TS when inoperability is due solely Description of amendment request: other measures have been taken which
to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed The amendment would revise the PNPS provide adequate protection during this
and managed, will not introduce new failure Cyber Security Plan (CSP) period of time. Because there is no change to
modes or effects and will not, in the absence established safety margins as a result of this
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8
of other unrelated failures, lead to an change, the proposed change does not
accident whose consequences exceed the
full implementation date. The involve a significant reduction in a margin of
consequences of accidents previously amendment would also revise the PNPS safety.
evaluated. The addition of a requirement to Facility Operating License No. DPR–35. Therefore, the proposed change does not
assess and manage the risk introduced by this Basis for proposed no significant involve a significant reduction in a margin of
change will further minimize possible hazards consideration determination: safety.
concerns. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The NRC staff has reviewed the
Thus, this change does not create the licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this
possibility of a new or different kind of issue of no significant hazards
accident from an accident previously review, it appears that the three
consideration, which is presented standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
evaluated.
below: Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not 1. Does the proposed change involve a determine that the amendment request
Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin significant increase in the probability or involves no significant hazards
of Safety consequences of an accident previously consideration.
The proposed change allows a delay time evaluated? Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho,
for entering a supported system TS when the Response: No. Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable The proposed change to the CSP
Implementation Schedule is administrative Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The
postulated initiating events which may in nature. This change does not alter accident Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
require a functional barrier are limited to analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G.
those with low frequencies of occurrence, affect the function of plant systems or the Beasley.
and the overall TS system safety function manner in which systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
would still be available for the majority of
anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the The proposed change does not require any Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power
proposed TS changes was assessed following plant modifications which affect the Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County,
the three-tiered approach recommended in performance capability of the structures, Illinois
[NRC Regulatory Guide 1.177, ‘‘An Approach systems, and components relied upon to Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
for Plant-Specific Risk-Informed mitigate the consequences of postulated
accidents and have no impact on the
Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249,
Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications,’’
probability or consequences of an accident Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2
August 1998 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML003740176)]. A bounding risk assessment previously evaluated. and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
was performed to justify the proposed TS Therefore, the proposed change does not Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is involve a significant increase in the Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad
predicated upon the licensee’s performance probability or consequences of an accident
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1
of a risk assessment and the management of previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
plant risk. The net change to the margin of
safety is insignificant as indicated by the possibility of a new or different kind of Date of amendment request: August
anticipated low levels of associated risk accident from any accident previously 18, 2015. A publically-available version
(ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage evaluated? is in ADAMS under Accession No.
probability] and ICLERP [incremental large Response: No. ML15231A097.
early release probability]) as shown in Table The proposed change to the CSP Description of amendment request:
1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation Implementation Schedule is administrative
in nature. This proposed change does not
The proposed change would revise the
[published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444)]. alter accident analysis assumptions, add any reactor steam dome pressure specified
Therefore, this change does not involve a initiators, or affect the function of plant in the technical specification (TS) safety
significant reduction in a margin of safety. systems or the manner in which systems are limits.
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or Basis for proposed no significant
The NRC staff has reviewed the above inspected. The proposed change does not hazards consideration determination:
analysis and, based on this review, it require any plant modifications which affect As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
appears that the three standards of 10 the performance capability of the structures, licensee has provided its analysis of the
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the systems, and components relied upon to issue of no significant hazards
NRC staff proposes to determine that the mitigate the consequences of postulated
consideration, which is presented
amendment request involves no accidents and do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any below:
significant hazards consideration.
accident previously evaluated. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
Attorney for licensee: William A. Therefore, the proposed change does not significant increase in the probability or
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K create the possibility of a new or different consequences of an accident previously
Street NW., Washington, DC 20006– kind of accident from any accident evaluated?
3817. previously evaluated. Response: No.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 3. Does the proposed change involve a The proposed change to the reactor steam
Markley. significant reduction in a margin of safety? dome pressure in the CPS [Clinton Power
Response: No. Station, Unit 1], DNPS [Dresdent Nuclear
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Plant safety margins are established Power Station, Units 2 and 3], and QCNPS
Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear through limiting conditions for operation, [Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth limiting safety system settings, and safety and 2] Reactor Core Safety Limits TS 2.1.1.1
County, Massachusetts limits specified in the technical and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the use of the
specifications. The proposed change to the analytical methods used to determine the
Date of amendment request: July 15, CSP Implementation Schedule is safety limits that have been previously
2015. A publicly available version is in administrative in nature. In addition, the reviewed and approved by the NRC. The
ADAMS under Accession No. milestone date delay for full implementation proposed change is in accordance with an
ML15205A287. of the CSP has no substantive impact because NRC approved critical power correlation
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices 65813
methodology, and as such, maintains requirements governing operation or the minimum load capacities and load limit
required safety margins. The proposed availability of safety equipment assumed to controls required for the manipulator crane
change does not adversely affect accident operate to preserve the margin of safety. The limits and relocate the requirements to the
initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the change does not alter the behavior of plant UFSAR and related procedures, which will
design assumptions, conditions, or equipment, which remains unchanged. have no impact on any safety related
configuration of the facility or the manner in The proposed change to Reactor Core structures, systems or components. Once
which the plant is operated and maintained. Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 is consistent relocated to the UFSAR and related
The proposed change does not alter or with and within the capabilities of the procedures, changes to establishing and
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and applicable NRC approved critical power maintaining communications between the
components (SSCs) from performing their correlation for the fuel designs in use at CPS, control room and the refueling station and
intended function to mitigate the DNPS, and QCNPS. No setpoints at which the minimum load capacities and load limit
consequences of an initiating event within protective actions are initiated are altered by controls required for the manipulator crane
the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed the proposed change. The proposed change limits will be controlled in accordance with
change does not require any physical change does not alter the manner in which the safety 10 CFR 50.59.
to any plant SSCs nor does it require any limits are determined. This change is The probability of occurrence of a
change in systems or plant operations. The consistent with plant design and does not previously evaluated accident is not
proposed change is consistent with the safety change the TS operability requirements; thus, increased because these changes do not
analysis assumptions and resultant previously evaluated accidents are not introduce any new potential accident
consequences. affected by this proposed change. initiating conditions. The consequences of
Therefore, the proposed change does not Therefore, the proposed changes do not accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR
involve a significant increase in the involve a significant reduction in a margin of are not affected because the ability of the
probability or consequences of an accident safety. components to perform their required
previously evaluated. functions is not affected.
2. Does the proposed change create the The NRC staff has reviewed the Therefore, the proposed changes do not
possibility of a new or different kind of licensee’s analysis and, based on this involve a significant increase in the
accident from any accident previously review, it appears that the three probability or consequences of an accident
evaluated? standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are previously evaluated.
Response: No. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 2. Does the proposed change create the
The proposed reduction in the reactor proposes to determine that the possibility of a new or different kind of
dome pressure safety limit from 785 psig requested amendments involve no accident from any accident previously
[pounds per square inch gauge] to 685 psig evaluated?
significant hazards consideration.
is a change based upon previously approved Response: No.
documents and does not involve changes to
Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, The proposed changes remove [from the
the plant hardware or its operating Associate General Counsel, Exelon TSs] the current necessity of establishing and
characteristics. As a result, no new failure Generation Company, LLC, 4300 maintaining communications between the
modes are being introduced. There are no Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. control room and the refueling station and
hardware changes nor are there any changes NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. the minimum load capacities and load limit
in the method by which any plant systems controls required for the manipulator crane
perform a safety function. No new accident
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket limits and relocate the requirements to the
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point UFSAR and related procedures, which will
single failures are introduced as a result of Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, have no impact on any safety related
the proposed change. Miami-Dade County, Florida structures, systems or components. Once
The proposed change does not introduce Date of amendment request: July 2, relocated to the UFSAR and related
any new accident precursors, nor does it procedures, changes to establishing and
2015. A publicly-available version is in
involve any physical plant alterations or maintaining communications between the
changes in the methods governing normal ADAMS under Accession No. control room and the refueling station and
plant operation. Also, the change does not ML15198A153. the minimum load capacities and load limit
impose any new or different requirements or Description of amendment request: controls required for the manipulator crane
eliminate any existing requirements. The The amendments would revise the limits will be controlled in accordance with
change does not alter assumptions made in technical specifications (TSs) related to 10 CFR 50.59.
the safety analysis. communications and manipulator crane The proposed changes do not introduce
Therefore, the proposed change does not requirements. The licensee requested new modes of plant operation and do not
create the possibility of a new or different that these requirements be relocated to involve physical modifications to the plant
kind of accident from any previously the Updated Final Safety Analysis (no new or different type of equipment will
evaluated. be installed). There are no changes in the
3. Does the proposed change involve a
Report (UFSAR) and related procedures method by which any safety related plant
significant reduction in a margin of safety? and be controlled in accordance with 10 structure, system, or component (SSC)
Response: No. CFR 50.59, ‘‘Changes, tests, and performs its specified safety function. As
The margin of safety is established through experiments.’’ such, the plant conditions for which the
the design of the plant structures, systems, Basis for proposed no significant design basis accident analyses were
and components, and through the parameters hazards consideration determination: performed remain valid.
for safe operation and setpoints for the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the No new accident scenarios, transient
actuation of equipment relied upon to licensee has provided its analysis of the precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting
respond to transients and design basis issue of no significant hazards single failures will be introduced as a result
accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 of the proposed change. There will be no
consideration, which is presented
condition by General Electric determined adverse effect or challenges imposed on any
that since the Minimum Critical Power Ratio below: SSC as a result of the proposed changes.
improves during the PRFO [pressure 1. Does the proposed change involve a Therefore, the proposed changes do not
regulator failure maximum demand (open)] significant increase in the probability or create the possibility of a new or different
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
transient, there is no decrease in the safety consequences of an accident previously kind of accident from any previously
margin and therefore there is not a threat to evaluated? evaluated.
fuel cladding integrity. The proposed change Response: No. 3. Does the proposed change involve a
in reactor dome pressure supports the current The proposed changes remove [from the significant reduction in a margin of safety?
safety margin, which protects the fuel TSs] the current necessity of establishing and Response: No.
cladding integrity during a depressurization maintaining communications between the Margin of safety is related to confidence in
transient, but does not change the control room and the refueling station and the ability of the fission product barriers to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/7.svg)
![65814 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices
perform their accident mitigation functions. based containment leakage rate testing kind of accident from any accident
The proposed changes remove [from the TSs] program. previously evaluated.
the current necessity of establishing and Basis for proposed no significant 3. Does the proposed change involve a
maintaining communications between the hazards consideration determination: significant reduction in a margin of safety?
control room and the refueling station and Response: No.
the minimum load capacities and load limit As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Margin of safety is related to confidence in
controls required for the manipulator crane licensee has provided its analysis of the the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel
limits and relocate the requirements to the issue of no significant hazards cladding, reactor coolant system, and
UFSAR and related procedures, which will consideration, which is presented primary containment) to perform their design
have no impact on any safety related below: functions during and following postulated
structures, systems or components. Once accidents. The proposed change to
relocated to the UFSAR and related 1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or implement a performance-based containment
procedures, changes to establishing and testing program, associated with integrated
maintaining communications between the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated? leakage rate test frequency, does not affect
control room and the refueling station and plant operations, design functions, or any
the minimum load capacities and load limit Response: No.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC- analysis that verifies the capability of a
controls required for the manipulator crane structure, system, or component of the plant
limits will be controlled in accordance with accepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision
3–A, ‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing to perform a design function. In addition, this
10 CFR 50.59. The proposed changes do not change does not affect safety limits, limiting
physically alter any SSC. There will be no Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix J,’’ for development of the DAEC safety system setpoints, or limiting
effect on those SSCs necessary to assure the conditions for operation.
accomplishment of protection functions. performance-based containment testing
program. NEI 94–01 allows, based on risk The specific requirements and conditions
There will be no impact on the overpower of the TS Primary Containment Leakage Rate
limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio and performance, an extension of Type A and
Type C containment leak test intervals. Testing Program exist to ensure that the
(DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak
Implementation of these guidelines continues degree of containment structural integrity
cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), or any
to provide adequate assurance that during and leak-tightness that is considered in the
other margin of safety. The applicable
design basis accidents, the primary plant safety analysis is maintained. The
radiological dose consequence acceptance
containment and its components will limit overall containment leak rate limit specified
criteria will continue to be met.
leakage rates to less than the values assumed by TS is maintained. This ensures that the
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
in the plant safety analyses. margin of safety in the plant safety analysis
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
The findings of the DAEC risk assessment is maintained. The design, operation, testing
safety.
confirm the general findings of previous methods and acceptance criteria for Type A,
The NRC staff has reviewed the studies that the risk impact with extending B, and C containment leakage tests specified
licensee’s analysis and, based on this the containment leak rate is small. Per the in applicable codes and standards would
review, it appears that the three guidance provided in Regulatory Guide continue to be met, with the acceptance of
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 1.174, an extension of the leak test interval this proposed change, since these are not
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff in accordance with NEI 94–01, Revision 3– affected by implementation of a performance-
A results in an estimated change within the based containment testing program.
proposes to determine that the
very small change region. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
amendment request involves no Since the change is implementing a involve a significant reduction in a margin of
significant hazards consideration. performance-based containment testing safety.
Attorney for licensee: William S. program, the proposed amendment does not
Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, involve either a physical change to the plant The NRC staff has reviewed the
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 or a change in the manner in which the plant licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno is operated or controlled. The requirement review, it appears that the three
Beach, FL 33408–0420. for containment leakage rate acceptance will standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. not be changed by this amendment. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
Therefore, the containment will continue to proposes to determine that the
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, perform its design function as a barrier to amendment request involves no
Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold fission product releases. significant hazards consideration.
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the Attorney for licensee: Mr. James Petro,
Iowa P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408–
probability or consequences of an accident
Date of amendment request: August previously evaluated. 0420.
18, 2015. A publicly-available version is 2. Does the proposed change create the NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
in ADAMS under Accession No. possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously South Carolina Electric and Gas
ML15246A445.
Description of amendment request: evaluated? Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–
The proposed amendment would revise Response: No. 028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
the technical specifications (TSs) The proposed change to implement a Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
performance-based containment testing Carolina
Section 5.5.12, ‘‘Primary Containment program, associated with integrated leakage
Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ by rate test frequency, does not change the Date of amendment request: May 4,
replacing the reference to the NRC design or operation of structures, systems, or 2015. A publicly-available version is in
Regulatory Guide 1.163, ‘‘Performance- components of the plant. ADAMS under Accession No.
Based Containment Leak-Test Program,’’ The proposed changes would continue to ML15124A911.
with a reference to the Nuclear Energy ensure containment integrity and would Description of amendment request:
Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94–01, ensure operation within the bounds of The proposed amendment and
existing accident analyses. There are no
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Revision 3–A, ‘‘Industry Guideline for exemption identify portions of the
accident initiators created or affected by
Implementing Performance-Based licensing basis that would more
these changes. Therefore, the proposed
Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J,’’ changes will not create the possibility of a appropriately be classified as Tier 2,
and conditions and limitations specified new or different kind of accident from any specifically the Tier 2* information on
in NEI 94–01, Revision 2–A, as the accident previously evaluated. Fire Area Figures 9A–1, 9A–2, 9A–3,
implementation document used by Therefore, the proposed changes do not 9A–4, 9A–5, and 9A–201 in the Virgil
DAEC to implement the performance- create the possibility of a new or different C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices 65815
3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. a change to procedures or method of control closed when the RCS pressure is above the
With the reclassification, prior NRC of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The alarm setpoint and administrative procedures
approval would continue to be required only impact of this activity is the will ensure that the RHR System will be
reclassification of information in the Updated isolated from the RCS, if the RCS pressure
for any safety significant changes to the
Final Safety Analysis Report. increases above the alarm setpoint, which
Fire Area Figures because any revisions Therefore, the proposed amendment does will decrease the likelihood of an interfacing
to that information would follow the not involve a significant reduction in a system [Loss-of-Coolant Accident] LOCA.
Tier 2 change process provided in 10 margin of safety. Therefore, the performance of the RHR
CFR part 52, appendix D, Section System would not be adversely affected by
VIII.B.5. The NRC staff has reviewed the the ACI deletion and the RHR suction
Basis for proposed no significant licensee’s analysis and, based on this isolation valve alarm installation.
hazards consideration determination: review, it appears that the three The RHR ACI provides automatic closure
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are to the RHR System suction isolation valves
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff on high RCS pressure; however, rapid
licensee has provided its analysis of the overpressure protection of the RHR System is
issue of no significant hazards proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no provided by the RHR relief valves and not by
consideration, which is presented the slow acting suction isolation valves. This
below: significant hazards consideration.
RHR System overpressure protection is not
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. affected by the removal of the ACI, this
1. Does the proposed amendment involve Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,
a significant increase in the probability or feature also serves to decrease the likelihood
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., of an interfacing system LOCA. Thus, the
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated? Washington, DC 20004–2514. RHR System integrity will not be affected by
Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. the removal of the ACI feature. In addition,
The proposed amendment would reclassify Burkhart. the removal of the ACI feature does not
Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The adversely affect any fission barrier, alter any
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, assumptions made in the radiological
proposed amendment does not modify the
design, construction, or operation of any Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, consequences evaluations, or affect the
plant structures, systems, or components Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 mitigation of radiological consequences.
(SSCs), nor does it change any procedures or and 2, Houston County, Alabama The impact of ACI removal on RHR
method of control for any SSCs. Because the shutdown cooling, low temperature
Date of amendment request: August overpressure protection, and interfacing
proposed amendment does not change the
31, 2015. A publicly-available version is system LOCA initiating event frequency was
design, construction, or operation of any
SSCs, it does not adversely affect any design in ADAMS under Accession No. assessed. For each of these areas that were
function as described in the Updated Final ML15261A673. assessed, it was concluded that the removal
Safety Analysis Report. Description of amendment request: of ACI and the accompanying plant changes
Therefore, the proposed amendment does The proposed change would eliminate provides a benefit to plant safety.
not affect the probability of an accident the current requirement to perform the With the deletion of the ACI, there is no
previously evaluated. Similarly, because the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) longer any potential for spurious automatic
proposed amendment does not alter the autoclosure interlock Surveillance closure of a RHR System suction isolation
design or operation of the nuclear plant or valve resulting in inadvertent RHR System
Requirement (SR) 3.4.14.2 and revise isolation and loss of shutdown cooling.
any plant SSCs, the proposed amendment
does not represent a change to the
Action Condition C to eliminate the Therefore, it is concluded that the
radiological effects of an accident, and RHR autoclosure interlock from the proposed changes do not involve a
therefore, does not involve an increase in the Action Condition. significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously Basis for proposed no significant consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. hazards consideration determination: evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards accident from any accident previously
evaluated? evaluated?
consideration, which is presented
Response: No. Response: No.
The proposed amendment would reclassify below: The removal of the RHR System ACI, and
Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The 1. Does the proposed amendment involve corresponding TS requirements, does not
proposed amendment is not a modification, a significant increase in the probability or result in the initiation of any accident nor
addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. consequences of an accident previously create any new credible limiting single
Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not evaluated? failures.
a change to procedures or method of control Response: No. The removal of the ACI eliminates the
of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The The two motor-operated gate valves located potential for spurious circuitry actuation
only impact of this activity is the in each RHR System suction line are causing isolation of the RHR system.
reclassification of information in the Updated normally-closed to maintain the low pressure Furthermore, the addition of an alarm to alert
Final Safety Analysis Report. RHR System (design pressure of 600 psig) the operator that a suction valve is not fully
Because the proposed amendment only isolated from the high pressure [reactor closed when RCS pressure is above the alarm
reclassifies information and does not change coolant system] RCS (normal operating setpoint reduces the likelihood that the RHR
the design, construction, or operation of the pressure of 2235 psig). An [autoclosure system will be exposed to high pressure
nuclear plant or any plant operations, the interlock] ACI was provided to isolate the conditions. These modifications and the
amendment does not create the possibility of low pressure RHR System from the RCS resulting elimination of the ACI TS
a new or different kind of accident from any when the pressure increases above the ACI Surveillance Requirement will not result in
accident previously evaluated. setpoint. However, spurious ACI actuation the RHR system being operated in any
3. Does the proposed amendment involve has resulted in RHR System isolation and unanalyzed modes, either during normal or
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? subsequent loss of decay heat removal accident conditions. Also, the AHA system
Response: No. capability. The removal of the ACI feature will continue to be maintained and
The proposed amendment would reclassify will preclude this inadvertent isolation, thus surveilled as it is currently.
Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The increasing the likelihood that RHR will be No new accident scenarios, failure
proposed amendment is not a modification, available to remove decay heat. The addition mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. of a control room alarm to alert the operator introduced as a result of the proposed
Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not that a suction/isolation valve(s) is not fully changes. The proposed change does not
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/9.svg)
![65816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices
challenge the performance or integrity of any Basis for proposed no significant qualification is adversely affected by the
safety-related system. hazards consideration determination: changes. This activity will not allow for a
Therefore, it is concluded that the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the new fission product release path, result in a
proposed changes do not create the new fission product barrier failure mode, nor
possibility of a new or different kind of
licensee has provided its analysis of the
create a new sequence of events that would
accident from any previously evaluated. issue of no significant hazards result in significant fuel cladding failures.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve consideration, which is presented Therefore, the proposed amendment does
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? below: not create the possibility of a new or different
Response: No. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve kind of accident from any accident
Removal of the ACI interlock, and its a significant increase in the probability or previously evaluated.
corresponding TS Surveillance Requirement, consequences of an accident previously 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
does not alter or prevent any plant response evaluated? a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
such that the margin of safety to any Response: No. Response: No.
applicable acceptance criteria is significantly The VEGP [Units] 3 and 4 emergency The VEGP [Units] 3 and 4 emergency
decreased. In fact, the addition of a control planning inspections, tests, analyses, and planning ITAAC provide assurance that the
room alarm that identifies that the suction acceptance criteria (ITAAC) provide facility has been constructed and will be
valve is not fully open, together with the assurance that the facility has been operated in conformity with the license, the
existing overpressure alarm, ensures that the constructed and will be operated in provisions of the Act, and the Commission’s
margin of safety to an AHA overpressure conformity with the license, the provisions of rules and regulations. The changes do not
condition is not significantly reduced. the Act, and the Commission’s rules and affect the assessments or the plant itself. The
Furthermore, the actuation of safety-related regulations. The proposed change to remove changes do not adversely interface with
components and the response of plant the copy of UFSAR Table 7.5–1 from safety-related equipment or fission product
systems to accident scenarios are not Appendix C of the VEGP [Units 3 and 4] barriers. No safety analysis, design basis limit
affected, and thus will remain as assumed in COLs does not affect the design of a system, or acceptance criterion are challenged or
the safety analysis. structure, or component (SSC) used to meet exceeded by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change will not the design bases of the nuclear plant. Nor do Therefore, the proposed amendment does
adversely affect the operation or safety the changes affect the construction or not involve a significant reduction in a
function of equipment assumed in the safety operation of the nuclear plant itself, so there margin of safety.
analysis. is no change to the probability or
For the reasons noted above, it is consequences of an accident previously The NRC staff has reviewed the
concluded that the proposed change does not evaluated. Removing the copy of UFSAR licensee’s analysis and, based on this
involves a significant reduction in a margin Table 7.5–1 from Appendix C of the COLs review, it appears that the three
of safety. does not affect prevention and mitigation of standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
The NRC staff has reviewed the abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods proposes to determine that the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this and turbine missiles, or their safety or design
review, it appears that the three analyses. No safety-related SSC or function is amendment request involves no
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are adversely affected. The changes do not significant hazards consideration.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff involve nor interface with any SSC accident Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford
proposes to determine that the initiator or initiating sequence of events, and Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
amendment request involves no thus, the probabilities of the accidents Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
significant hazards consideration. evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. 35203–2015.
Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, Because the changes do not involve any NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
safety-related SSC or function used to Burkhart.
SVP & General Counsel of Operations mitigate an accident, the consequences of the
and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center affected. Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424, 50–425, 52–
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. Therefore, the proposed amendment does 025, 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, Burke
Pascarelli.
previously evaluated. County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 2. Does the proposed amendment create Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle the possibility of a new or different kind of Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M.
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units accident from any accident previously Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia evaluated? Houston County, Alabama, Docket Nos.
Response: No. 50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch
Date of amendment request: The VEGP [Units] 3 and 4 emergency
September 1, 2015. A publicly-available Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, City of
planning ITAAC provide assurance that the
version is in ADAMS under Accession facility has been constructed and will be Dalton, GA
No. ML15244A602). operated in conformity with the license, the Date of amendment request: August
Description of amendment request: provisions of the Act, and the Commission’s 31, 2015. A publicly-available version is
The proposed change would amend rules and regulations. The changes do not in ADAMS under Accession Package
Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF–91 affect the design of an SSC used to meet the
design bases of the nuclear plant, nor do the No. ML15246A045.
and NPF–92 for the VEGP Units 3 and changes affect the construction or operation Description of amendment request:
4. The requested amendment proposes of the nuclear plant. Consequently, there is The amendments request NRC approval
to revise the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plant- no new or different kind of accident from any of a standard emergency plan for all
specific emergency planning accident previously evaluated. The changes Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
inspections, tests, analyses, and do not affect safety-related equipment, nor do Inc., sites and site-specific annexes.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
acceptance criteria in Appendix C of the they affect equipment which, if it failed, Basis for proposed no significant
VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLs, to remove could initiate an accident or a failure of a hazards consideration determination:
fission product barrier. In addition, the
the copy of Updated Final Safety changes do not result in a new failure mode,
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 7.5–1, malfunction or sequence of events that could licensee has provided its analysis of the
‘‘Post-Accident Monitoring System,’’ affect safety or safety-related equipment. issue of no significant hazards
from Appendix C of the VEGP Units 3 No analysis is adversely affected. No consideration, which is presented
and 4 COLs. system or design function or equipment below:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/10.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices 65817
1. Does the proposed amendment involve Appendix E and the emergency planning arithmetic average of all CEA drop times
a significant increase in the probability or standards of 10 CFR 50.47. to be less than or equal to 3.5 seconds.
consequences of an accident previously Therefore, the proposed changes do not Date of publication of individual
evaluated? involve a significant reduction in the margin notice in the Federal Register:
Response: No. of safety.
The proposed changes have no effect on
September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53892).
normal plant operation or on any accident
The NRC staff has reviewed the Expiration date of individual notice:
initiator or precursors, and do not impact the licensee’s analysis and, based on this October 8, 2015 (public comments); and
function of plant structures, systems, or review, it appears that the three November 9, 2015 (hearing requests).
components (SSCs). The proposed changes standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
do not alter or prevent the ability of the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
emergency response organization to perform to Facility Operating Licenses and
proposes to determine that the
its intended functions to mitigate the Combined Licenses
amendment request involves no
consequences of an accident or event. The significant hazards consideration. During the period since publication of
ability of the emergency response Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, the last biweekly notice, the
organization to respond adequately to
SVP & General Counsel of Operations Commission has issued the following
radiological emergencies has been
demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear amendments. The Commission has
analysis as required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center determined for each of these
E.IV.A.9. Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. amendments that the application
Therefore, the proposed changes do not NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. complies with the standards and
involve a significant increase in the Pascarelli. requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
probability or consequences of an accident of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
previously evaluated. III. Previously Published Notices of
Commission’s rules and regulations.
2. Does the proposed amendment create Consideration of Issuance of
The Commission has made appropriate
the possibility of a new or different kind of Amendments to Facility Operating
accident from any accident previously
findings as required by the Act and the
Licenses and Combined Licenses,
evaluated? Commission’s rules and regulations in
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Response: No. 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
Consideration Determination, and
The proposed changes will not change the the license amendment.
Opportunity for a Hearing A notice of consideration of issuance
design function or operation of SSCs. The
changes do not impact the accident analysis. The following notices were previously of amendment to facility operating
The changes do not involve a physical published as separate individual license or combined license, as
alteration of the plant, a change in the notices. The notice content was the applicable, proposed no significant
method of plant operation, or new operator same as above. They were published as hazards consideration determination,
actions. The proposed changes do not individual notices either because time and opportunity for a hearing in
introduce failure modes that could result in
did not allow the Commission to wait connection with these actions, was
a new accident, and the changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. As for this biweekly notice or because the published in the Federal Register as
demonstrated by the SNC staffing analysis action involved exigent circumstances. indicated.
performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50 They are repeated here because the Unless otherwise indicated, the
Appendix E.IV.A.9, the proposed changes do biweekly notice lists all amendments Commission has determined that these
not alter or prevent the ability of the issued or proposed to be issued amendments satisfy the criteria for
emergency response organization to perform involving no significant hazards categorical exclusion in accordance
its intended functions to mitigate the consideration. with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
consequences of an accident or event. For details, see the individual notice to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
Therefore, the proposed changes do not in the Federal Register on the day and impact statement or environmental
create the possibility of a new or different
page cited. This notice does not extend assessment need be prepared for these
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. the notice period of the original notice. amendments. If the Commission has
3. Does the proposed changes involve a Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– prepared an environmental assessment
significant reduction in a margin of safety? 382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, under the special circumstances
Response: No.
Unit 3 (WF3) St. Charles Parish, provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
Margin of safety is associated with made a determination based on that
confidence in the ability of the fission Louisiana
assessment, it is so indicated.
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor Date of amendment request: July 2, For further details with respect to the
coolant system pressure boundary, and 2015, as supplemented by letter dated action see (1) the applications for
containment structure) to limit the level of August 14, 2015. Publicly-available amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
radiation dose to the public. The proposed versions are in ADAMS under
changes are associated with the Emergency the Commissions related letter, Safety
Plan and do not impact operation of the plant
Accession Nos. ML15197A106 and Evaluation and/or Environmental
or its response to transients or accidents. The ML15226A346, respectively. Assessment as indicated. All of these
changes do not affect the Technical Brief description of amendment: This items can be accessed as described in
Specifications. The changes do not involve a notice is being reissued in its entirety to the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
change in the method of plant operation, and remove information that was Submitting Comments’’ section of this
no accident analyses will be affected by the inadvertently included in the notice document.
proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance published in the Federal Register on
criteria are not affected. The Standard September 29, 2015 (80 FR 58520), for DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50–
Emergency Plan will continue to provide the 341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
WF3. The proposed amendment will
necessary response staff for emergencies as
modify the Technical Specification (TS) Date of amendment request: October
demonstrated by staffing and functional
analyses including the necessary timeliness 3.1.3.4, ‘‘Control Element Assembly 21, 2014, as supplemented by letters
of performing major tasks for the functional [CEA] Drop Time’’ and Final Safety dated June 18, and July 28, 2015.
areas of the Emergency Plan. The proposed Analysis Report, Chapter 15, ‘‘Accident Description of amendment: The
changes do not adversely affect SNC’s ability Analyses.’’ The proposed amendment amendment revised the emergency
to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50 would change TS 3.1.3.4 to revise the action level scheme for Fermi 2 based
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/11.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices 65819
Completion Times Limiting Time from Brief description of amendment: The 19, 2015, provided additional
Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO amendment revised the Technical information that clarified the
[Limiting Condition for Operation].’’ Specifications (TSs). The amendment application, did not expand the scope of
The second completion times associated added a note to TS Surveillance the application as originally noticed,
with TS 3.6.2.1, ‘‘Containment Spray Requirement 4.4.1.3.4, which requires and did not change the staff’s original
and Cooling Systems,’’ were deleted. verification that residual heat removal proposed no significant hazards
Date of Issuance: October 5, 2015. loop operations susceptible to gas consideration determination as
Effective Date: As of the date of accumulation are sufficiently filled with published in the Federal Register.
issuance and shall be implemented water in accordance with the The Commission’s related evaluation
within 90 days of issuance. Surveillance Frequency Control of the amendments is contained in a
Amendment Nos. 228 and 178. A Program. Safety Evaluation dated September 30,
publicly-available version is in ADAMS Date of issuance: October 6, 2015. 2015.
under Accession No. ML15251A094; Effective date: As of its date of
documents related to these amendments issuance and shall be implemented No significant hazards consideration
are listed in the Safety Evaluation within 30 days of issuance. comments received: No.
enclosed with the amendments. Amendment No.: 150. A publicly- South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
Renewed Facility Operating License available version is in ADAMS under Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil
Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments Accession No. ML15231A144; C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS)
revised the TSs. documents related to this amendment Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Date of initial notice in Federal are listed in the Safety Evaluation Carolina
Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR enclosed with the amendment.
5801). Facility Operating License No. NPF– Date of amendment request: May 26,
The Commission’s related evaluation 86: Amendment revised the Facility 2015, as supplemented by letter dated
of the amendments is contained in a Operating License and Technical May 28, 2015 and as revised by letters
Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2015. Specifications. dated June 9, and June 29, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration Date of initial notice in Federal Description of amendment: The
comments received: No. Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46350). amendment authorized changes to the
The Commission’s related evaluation VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket
of the amendment is contained in a Safety Analysis Report on the
Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point
Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 2015. applicability of the American Institute
Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, No significant hazards consideration
Miami-Dade County, Florida of Steel Construction (AISC) N690–
comments received: No. 1994, ‘‘Specification for the Design,
Date of amendment request: October
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety-
7, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo Related Structures for Nuclear
amendments revised the scheduled Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Facilities,’’ to allow use of the American
completion date for Milestone 8 of the Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo Welding Society (AWS) D1.1–2000,
Cyber Security Plan implementation County, California ‘‘Structural Welding Code-Steel,’’ in lieu
schedule and License Condition 3.E in Date of amendment request: October of the AWS D1.1–1992 edition
Renewed Facility Operating License 17, 2014, as supplemented by letter identified in AISC N690–1994.
Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41. dated February 19, 2015. Date of issuance: September 1, 2015.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The Effective date: As of the date of
Effective date: As of the date of amendments revised the DCPP Cyber issuance and shall be implemented
issuance and shall be implemented Security Plan (CSP) Milestone h full within 90 days of issuance.
within 60 days of issuance. implementation schedule as set forth in
Amendment No.: 30. A publicly-
Amendment Nos.: 266 and 261. The the CSP implementation schedule.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2015. available version is in ADAMS under
amendments are in ADAMS under
Effective date: As of its date of Accession No. ML15224A750;
Accession No. ML15233A379;
issuance and shall be implemented documents related to this amendment
documents related to these amendments
within 60 days from the date of are listed in the Safety Evaluation
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
issuance. All subsequent changes to the enclosed with the amendment.
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License NRC-approved CSP implementation Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments schedule as approved by the NRC staff 93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the
revised the Renewed Facility Operating with this license amendment will Facility Combined Licenses.
Licenses. require prior NRC approval pursuant to Date of initial notice in Federal
Date of initial notice in Federal 10 CFR 50.90. Register: June 8, 2015 (80 FR 32413).
Register: January 6, 2015 (80 FR 535). Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—220; Unit However, the June 29, 2015, letter
The Commission’s related evaluation 2—222. A publicly-available version is revised the application including the No
of the amendments is contained in a in ADAMS under Accession No. Significant Hazard Determination.
Safety Evaluation dated September 28, ML15245A542; documents related to Therefore, the staff issued a revised
2015. these amendments are listed in the notice on July 9, 2015, (80 FR 39450).
No significant hazards consideration Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
The Commission’s related evaluation
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
comments received: No. amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– of the amendment is contained in the
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 80 and DPR–82: The amendments Safety Evaluation dated September 1,
No.50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. revised the Facility Operating Licenses. 2015.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of initial notice in Federal No significant hazards consideration
Date of amendment request: July 13, Register: April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18659). comments received: Yes. The comments
2015. The supplemental letter dated February were addressed in the Safety Evaluation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/13.svg)
![65820 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices
Southern California Edison Company, et AISC N690–1994. The use of AWS No significant hazards consideration
al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, D1.1–2000 applies to future and comments received: No.
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, installed structural welding.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos.
Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, Date of issuance: August 31, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of 50–387 and 50–388, Susquehanna
California Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
issuance and shall be implemented
Date of amendment request: (SSES–1 and 2), Luzerne County,
within 30 days of issuance.
November 12, 2014, as supplemented by Pennsylvania
Amendment No.: 37. A publicly-
letter dated August 27, 2015. Date of amendment request: August
available version is in ADAMS under
Brief description of amendments: The 11, 2014, as supplemented by letters
Accession No. ML15215A288;
amendments revised the completion dated April 6, 2015, and July 16, 2015.
documents related to these amendments
date for Milestone 8, full Brief description of amendments: The
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
implementation, of the Cyber Security amendments changed SSES–1 and 2,
enclosed with the amendments.
Plan from December 31, 2015, to Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF– Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.10,
December 31, 2017. 91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the ‘‘RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure
Date of issuance: October 1, 2015. Facility Combined Licenses. and Temperature (P/T) Limits,’’
Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal specifically revising the P/T Limits
issuance and shall be implemented Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32624). curves. The revision provides P/T
within 30 days of issuance. A revised notice was issued on July 9, Limits curves that extend into the
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–231; Unit 2015 (80 FR 39454) as the June 29, 2015, vacuum region (e.g., below 0 pounds per
3–224. A publicly-available version is in letter revised the scope of the square inch gauge) to mitigate the risk
ADAMS under Accession No. amendment request and the licensee of a level transient during startup,
ML15209A935; documents related to revised the original no significant account for updated surveillance
these amendments are listed in the hazards consideration determination. material and fluence data for the reactor
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the The Commission’s related evaluation vessel beltline materials, and replace the
amendments. of the amendment is contained in a current 35.7 and 30.2 effective full
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Safety Evaluation dated August 31, power year (EFPY) P/T Limits curves for
10 and NPF–15: The amendments 2015. SSES–1 and 2, respectively, with new
revised the Facility Operating Licenses. No significant hazards consideration curves that are valid for 40 EFPY. This
Date of initial notice in Federal comments received: Yes. The comments license amendment request was
Register: April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18659). were addressed in the Safety Evaluation. submitted by PPL Susquehanna, LLC;
The supplemental letter dated August however, on June 1, 2015, the NRC staff
27, 2015, provided additional Southern Nuclear Operating Company, issued an amendment changing the
information that clarified the Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, name on the SSES license from PPL
application, did not expand the scope of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 Susquehanna, LLC to Susquehanna
the application as originally noticed, and 2, Burke County, Georgia Nuclear, LLC (ADAMS Accession No.
and did not change the staff’s original Date of amendment request: May 19, ML15054A066). These amendments
proposed no significant hazards 2015. were issued subsequent to an order
consideration determination as Brief description of amendments: The issued on April 10, 2015, to SSES,
published in the Federal Register. amendments revised the minimum approving an indirect license transfer of
The Commission’s related evaluation indicated nitrogen cover pressure the SSES license to Talen Energy
of the amendments is contained in a required per the Vogtle Electric Corporation (ADAMS Accession No.
Safety Evaluation dated October 1, 2015. Generating Plant Technical ML15058A073).
No significant hazards consideration Specifications (TS) Surveillance Date of issuance: September 30, 2015.
comments received: No. Requirement 3.5.1.3 from the current Effective date: As of the date of
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, requirement of 626 pounds per square issuance and shall be implemented
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle inch gauge (psig) back to the previous within 30 days.
requirement of 617 psig based on Amendment Nos.: 263 (Unit 1) and
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
installation of updated instrumentation. 244 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of issuance: October 5, 2015. version is in ADAMS under Accession
Date of amendment request: May 26, Effective date: As of the date of No. ML15243A140; documents related
2015, as supplemented by letter dated issuance and shall be implemented to these amendments are listed in the
May 28, 2015, and as revised by letters within 90 days from the date of safety evaluation enclosed with the
dated June 9, and June 29, 2015. issuance. amendments.
Brief description of amendment: The Amendment Nos.: 177 and 158. A Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
license amendment revised the publicly-available version is in ADAMS 14 and NPF–22: Amendments revised
Combined Licenses (COLs) by revising under Accession No. ML15222A753; the Facility Operating License and TSs.
the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final documents related to these amendments Date of initial notice in Federal
Safety Analysis Report on the are listed in the Safety Evaluation Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR
applicability of the American Institute enclosed with the amendments. 70217). The supplemental letters dated
of Steel Construction (AISC) N690– Renewed Facility Operating License April 6, 2015, and July 16, 2015,
1994, ‘‘Specification for the Design, Nos. NPF–68 and NPF–81: Amendments provided additional information that
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety- revised the Renewed Facility Operating clarified the application, expanded the
Related Structures for Nuclear Licenses and Technical Specifications. scope of the application as originally
Facilities,’’ to allow use of a newer Date of initial notice in Federal noticed, and changed the staff’s original
version of the American Welding Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43129). proposed no significant hazards
Society (AWS) D1.1–200, ‘‘Structural The Commission’s related evaluation consideration determination as
Welding Code-Steel,’’ in lieu of the of the amendments is contained in a published in the Federal Register. As
AWS D1.1–1992 edition identified in Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2015. such, the staff published a subsequent
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/14.svg)
![65822 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Notices
are listed in the Safety Evaluation Thursday, November 19, 2015 NUCLEAR REGULATORY
enclosed with the amendment. 9 a.m. Hearing on Combined Licenses COMMISSION
Renewed Facility Operating License for South Texas Project, Units 3 and
No. NPF–30: The amendment revised 4: Section 189a. of the Atomic [NRC–2015–0245]
the Emergency Action Level Technical Energy Act Proceeding (Public
Bases Document. Meeting) (Contact: Tom Tai: 301– Performance Review Boards for Senior
Date of initial notice in Federal 415–8484) Executive Service
Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR This meeting will be webcast live at AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
5813). The supplemental letters dated the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. Commission.
July 6, July 16, and August 31, 2015,
provided additional information that Week of November 23, 2015—Tentative ACTION: Appointments.
clarified the application, did not expand There are no meetings scheduled for SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
the scope of the application as originally the week of November 23, 2015. Commission (NRC) has announced
noticed, and did not change the staff’s appointments to the NRC Performance
Week of November 30, 2015—Tentative
original proposed no significant hazards Review Board (PRB) responsible for
consideration determination as Thursday, December 3, 2015
making recommendations on
published in the Federal Register. 9:30 a.m. Briefing on equal employment performance appraisal ratings and
The Commission’s related evaluation opportunity and civil rights performance awards for NRC Senior
of the amendment is contained in a outreach (Public Meeting) (Contact: Executives and Senior Level System
Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 2015. Larniece McKoy Moore: 301–415– employees and appointments to the
No significant hazards consideration 1942) NRC PRB Panel responsible for making
comments received: No. This meeting will be webcast live at recommendations to the appointing and
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. awarding authorities for NRC PRB
of October 2015. * * * * * members.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The schedule for Commission
DATES: October 27, 2015.
Anne T. Boland, meetings is subject to change on short
notice. For more information or to verify ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor the status of meetings, contact Denise NRC–2015–0245 when contacting the
Regulation. McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email NRC about the availability of
[FR Doc. 2015–27042 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P * * * * *
The NRC Commission Meeting information related to this document
Schedule can be found on the Internet using any of the following methods:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
COMMISSION public-meetings/schedule.html. http://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0245. Address
* * * * * questions about NRC dockets to Carol
[NRC–2015–0001] The NRC provides reasonable
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice accommodation to individuals with
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
disabilities where appropriate. If you
technical questions, contact the
DATE: October 26, November 2, 9, 16, need a reasonable accommodation to
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
23, 30, 2015. participate in these public meetings, or
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
need this meeting notice or the
document.
transcript or other information from the
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Maryland. public meetings in another format (e.g.
Access and Management System
braille, large print), please notify
STATUS: Public and Closed. (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
available documents online in the
Week of October 26, 2015 Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, by
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
videophone at 240–428–3217, or by
There are no meetings scheduled for http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
email at Kimberly.Meyer-
the week of October 26, 2015. adams.html. To begin the search, select
Chambers@nrc.gov. Determinations on
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
Week of November 2, 2015—Tentative requests for reasonable accommodation
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
There are no meetings scheduled for will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
the week of November 2, 2015. * * * * * please contact the NRC’s Public
Members of the public may request to Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
Week of November 9, 2015—Tentative receive this information electronically. 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
There are no meetings scheduled for If you would like to be added to the email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
the week of November 9, 2015. distribution, please contact the Nuclear • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
Regulatory Commission, Office of the purchase copies of public documents at
Week of November 16, 2015—Tentative Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
Tuesday, November 17, 2015 415–1969), or email White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9 a.m. Briefing on the Status of Lessons Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.
Learned from the Fukushima Dia- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ichi Accident (Public Meeting) Dated: October 22, 2015. Miriam L. Cohen, Secretary, Executive
(Contact: Gregory Bowman: 301– Denise McGovern, Resources Board, U.S. Nuclear
415–2939) Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. Regulatory Commission, Washington,
This meeting will be webcast live at [FR Doc. 2015–27434 Filed 10–23–15; 4:15 pm] DC 20555; telephone: 301–287–0747,
the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P email: Miriam.Cohen@nrc.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_66014/page/16.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:36:13
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:36:13
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Biweekly notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be filed by November 27, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 28, 2015. | |
| Contact | Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 65807 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR