81 FR 17501 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 60 (March 29, 2016)

Page Range		17501-17511
FR Document		2016-06939

Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from March 1, 2016, to March 14, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on March 15, 2016.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17501-17511]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06939]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0059]

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 March 1, 2016, to March 14, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on March 15, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by April 28, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by May 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0059. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
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: Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email: Sandra.Figueroa@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0059 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-2016-0059.
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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0059, 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 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.

[[Page 17502]]

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

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

[[Page 17503]]

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 May 31, 2016. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set
forth in this section, except that under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State,
local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10
CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State,
local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR
2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
May 31, 2016.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at 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
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting

[[Page 17504]]

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 Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16004A249.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request would
adopt the approved changes to the standard technical specifications for
General Electric Plants Boiling Water Reactor (BWR/4) per NUREG-1433,
Revision 4, to allow relocation of specific technical specification
(TS) surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The
proposed changes are described in Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML090850642), and are described in the Notice of
Availability published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR
31996).
The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF
Traveler, TSTF-425. The proposed changes relocate surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance
Frequency Control Program (SFCP). This change is applicable to
licensees using probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of
Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456).
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 relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
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.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Duke
Energy will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the
guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1, in
accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF), Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16043A424.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
JAF Emergency Plan to reduce the Emergency Response Organization (ERO)
positions that the licensee considers unnecessary to effectively
respond to credible accidents following permanent defueling. The
proposed amendment would not be effective until the certification of
permanent cessation of operation and certification of permanent removal
of fuel from the

[[Page 17505]]

reactor vessel are submitted to the NRC. The licensee has provided a
formal notification to the NRC of the intention to permanently cease
power operations of JAF at the end of the current operating cycle. Once
certifications for permanent cessation of operation and permanent
removal of fuel from the reactor are submitted to the NRC, reactor
operation is no longer authorized and the spectrum of credible
accidents at the facility will be reduced. The licensee states that
certain on-shift positions for the ERO that are needed during normal
reactor operation will no longer be necessary to protect the public
health and safety from the risks associated with spent fuel storage and
decommissioning activities.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the JAF Emergency Plan do not impact the
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The
proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or precursors,
nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO to perform their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The proposed changes only remove positions that will no longer be
credited in the JAF Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled
condition.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and ERO
positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new
accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
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 JAF Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed 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 by the
proposed changes. The revised JAF Emergency Plan will continue to
provide the necessary response staff with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains,
New York 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
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. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 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: February 3, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A542.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.2, for each facility, to provide
an allowance for brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant
secondary containment access doors during normal entry and exit
conditions.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows temporary conditions during which
secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The secondary
containment is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident
previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed change are no
different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the
existing 4-hour Completion Time for an inoperable secondary
containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant,
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows temporary conditions during which
secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The allowance for
both an inner and outer secondary containment access door to be open
simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety
function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly
closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary
containment boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous
opening and closing of redundant secondary containment access doors
during normal entry and exit conditions does not affect the ability
of the Standby Gas Treatment system to establish the required
secondary containment vacuum.
Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is
not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

[[Page 17506]]

Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville,
Illinois 60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Justin C. Poole.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A015.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant's Technical Specifications limit for Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) gross specific activity with a new limit based
upon RCS noble gas specific activity.
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.
Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any
accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary
coolant gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for
any accident previously evaluated. The current variable limit on
primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does
not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The
proposed change will limit primary coolant noble gases to
concentrations consistent with the accident analyses. The proposed
change to the Completion Time has no impact on the consequences of
any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident
during the extended Completion Time are the same as the consequences
of an accident during the Completion Time. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
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 change in specific activity limits does not alter
any physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant
operating parameter. The change does not create the potential for a
new or different kind of accident from any previously calculated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas
radioactivity in the primary coolant. The proposed change is
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and will
ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the
safety analyses.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not
involve a significant hazards consideration.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville,
Illinois 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: February 9, 2016. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16041A115
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
technical specifications (TS) requirements for limitations on the
radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the
references for the radioactive material effluent requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g
consistent with two changes proposed in [Technical Specification
Task Force] TSTF-258-A. The amendment has no effect on the design,
testing, or operation of plant structures, systems, or components.
The proposed amendment does not affect any accident initiators and
does not impact any safety analysis. The proposed amendment does not
impose any new radiological hazards to the plant staff or the
public.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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.
This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g
consistent with two changes proposed in TSTF-258-A. The amendment
will not change any equipment, does not require new equipment to be
installed, and will not change the way current equipment operates or
is maintained. No credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators are created by the proposed amendment.
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.
This license amendment request revises TS 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g
consistent with two changes proposed in TSTF-258-A. The amendment
has no effect on the design, testing, maintenance, or operation of
plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed amendment
does not affect any safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

[[Page 17507]]

``Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change
in the Technical Specification End-of-Cycle Negative MTC Limit,'' and
St. Lucie specific supporting information. This amendment request also
proposes to add previously NRC approved Westinghouse PARAGON Topical
Report WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, ``Qualification of the Two-
Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,'' to the Units 1 and 2 Technical
Specification list of Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)
methodologies.
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.
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of end-of-
cycle (EOC) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) if the
beginning-of-cycle (BOC) measurements are within a given tolerance
of the design values. MTC is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
The EOC MTC value is an important assumption in determining the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The analysis
presented in the Topical Report CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-A,
with additional justification provided in this amendment request,
determined that the EOC MTC will be within design limits if the BOC
MTC design values are within a given tolerance of the measured
values. Therefore, the EOC MTC will continue to be within design
limits and the consequences of accidents will continue to be as
previously evaluated.
The addition of WCAP-16045-P-A, which has been previously
approved by the NRC for licensing applications to TS 6.9.1.11.b, is
an administrative change which has no impact on the probability or
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
As a result, 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.
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if
the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance of the design
values. Also, a new previously approved methodology is proposed to
be included in the TS list of COLR methodologies. The proposed
changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation.
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.
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if
the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance of the design
values. The Topical Report CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-A, with
additional justification provided in this amendment request,
concluded that the risk of not measuring the EOC MTC is acceptably
small provided that the BOC measured values are within a specific
tolerance of the design values. Also, WCAP-16045-P-A proposed to be
added to TS 6.9.1.11, has been previously approved by the NRC for
licensing applications to be used consistent with the approved
methodologies.
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 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 Boulevard, MS LAW/
JB, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
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: January 29, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16029A476.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant Units 3 and 4. The requested amendment proposes to
depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Documents (DCD) Tier 2
information (text, tables, and figures) and involved Tier 2*
information (as incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) as plant specific DCD information), and also involves a
change to the plant-specific Technical Specifications. Specifically,
the amendment request proposed changes to the plant-specific AP1000
fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic design, and
accident analyses as described in the licensing basis documents. The
proposed changes are consistent with those generically approved in
WCAP-17524-P-A, Revision 1, ``AP1000 Core Reference Report.'' Basis for
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will revise the licensing basis documents
related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic
design, and accident analyses.
The UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses describe the analyses of
various design basis transients and accidents to demonstrate
compliance of the AP1000 design with the acceptance criteria for
these events. The acceptance criteria for the various events are
based on meeting the relevant regulations, general design criteria,
the Standard Review Plan, and are a function of the anticipated
frequency of occurrence of the event and potential radiological
consequences to the public. As such, each design-basis event is
categorized accordingly based on these considerations. As discussed
in Section 5.3 of WCAP-17524-P-A Revision 1, the revised accident
analyses maintain their plant conditions, and thus their frequency
designation and consequence level as previously evaluated. As
confirmed in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the revised
analyses meet the applicable guidelines in the Standard Review Plan.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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 revise the licensing basis documents
related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic
design, and accident analyses.
The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode,
fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive
material release. The proposed changes do not alter the design,
configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard
functional capabilities of the equipment.
Therefore, this activity does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will revise the licensing basis documents
related to the fuel system design, nuclear design, thermal hydraulic
design, and accident analyses.
Safety margins are applied at many levels to the design and
licensing basis functions

[[Page 17508]]

and to the controlling values of parameters to account for various
uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing limits.
UFSAR Subsection 4.1.1 presents the Principle Design Requirements
imposed on the fuel and control rod mechanism design to ensure that
the performance and safety criteria described in UFSAR Chapter 4 and
Chapter 15 are met. The revised fuel system design, nuclear design,
thermal hydraulic design, and accident analyses maintain the same
Principle Design Requirements, and further, satisfy the applicable
regulations, general design criteria, and Standard Review Plan. The
effects of the changes do not result in a significant reduction in
margin for any safety function, and were evaluated in the Safety
Evaluation Report for WCAP-17524-P-A Revision 1 and found to be
acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 5, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated August 10, 2015, December 17, 2015 and February 1, 2016,
respectively.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Robinson
Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b and Harris TS 6.9.1.6.2 to adopt
the reactor core design methodology report DPC-NE-2005-P-A, ``Thermal-
Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology,'' for application to
Robinson and Harris. The approval of the methodology report revision
added Appendix H specifically reviewed for Robinson and Appendix I
specifically reviewed for Harris, to use at each facility.
Date of issuance: March 8, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 148 and 244. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16049A630; documents related to the
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-23 and NPF-63: The
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR
46342). The supplemental letters dated August 10, 2015, December 17,
2015, and February 1, 2016, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated March 8, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of application for amendment: March 12, 2015, as supplemented
by letter dated May 6, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the
operating license to extend the completion date for full implementation
of the DBNPS cyber security plan to December 31, 2017.
Date of issuance: March 8, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 290. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15302A075. Documents related to this amendment are
listed in the safely evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2015 (80 FR 25720). The
supplemental letter dated May 6, 2015, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated March 8, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment requests: March 10, 2015, as supplemented by a
letter dated December 15, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments remove Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.9.5 related to communication during core
alteration and TS 3/4.9.6 related to manipulator crane operability from
the TSs and require inclusion of those specifications in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report.
Date of issuance: March 7, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.

[[Page 17509]]

Amendment Nos.: 230 and 180. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A080; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61483). The supplemental letter dated December 15, 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 an SE dated March 7, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated December 15, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
technical specification (TS) to ensure consistency between the two
units in the required actions for inoperability of auxiliary feedwater
pumps.
Date of Issuance: March 7, 2016.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 229 (Unit No. 1) and 179 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15356A611;
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: November 24, 2015 (80
FR 73237). The supplemental letter dated December 15, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of application for amendments: April 16, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Best
Estimate Analyzer for the Core Operations-Nuclear (BEACON) power
distribution monitoring system methodology described in the DCPP
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 4.3.2.2, ``Power
Distribution,'' to the method described in the Westinghouse Electric
Company LLC (Westinghouse) proprietary topical report (TR) WCAP-12472-
P-A, Addendum 4, ``BEACON Core Monitoring and Operation Support
System.'' The amendments also revised Technical Specification (TS)
5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' Section b to replace
Westinghouse proprietary TR WCAP-11596-P-A, ``Qualification of the
PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor
Cores,'' with NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP-16045-P-A,
``Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,'' and
NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A,
``Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology.''
Date of issuance: March 6, 2016.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to MODE 4 at the start of Cycle 21 for Unit 1, and for Unit 2
prior to MODE 4 at the start of Cycle 20.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--224; Unit 2--226. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16055A359; 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, TSs, and UFSAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR
32628).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated April 10, 2015; November 25, 2015; and February 3, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments created new
Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.2.1, ``Refueling Operations/Unborated
Water Source Isolation Valves,'' to isolate unborated water sources in
Mode 6 (Refueling) and revised the existing TS 3.9.2, ``Refueling
Operations/Instrumentation,'' to support using the Gamma-Metrics post-
accident neutron monitors for neutron flux indication during Mode 6. TS
3.9.2 is renumbered as TS 3.9.2.2, and the TS language is reworded to
be consistent with the language in NUREG-1431, Revision 4, ``Standard
Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants.'' These amendments also
remove the existing requirement for the audible indication of the
source range neutron flux monitor in the containment and the control
room during Mode 6.
Date of issuance: March 7, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 311 (Unit No. 1) and 292 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A087;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR
30101). The supplemental letters dated November 25, 2015, and February
3, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 4, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments corrected the Edwin
I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit 1,

[[Page 17510]]

Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) and the HNP, Units 1 and 2,
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendments correct
typographical errors in the HNP, Unit 1, RFOL, and HNP, Unit 2, TS, and
add the term STAGGERED TEST BASIS to TS Section 1.1, ``Definitions,''
of the HNP, Units 1 and 2, TS.
Date of issuance: March 7, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 276 and 220. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16043A101; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80
FR 69717).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: August 20, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated November 19, 2015, and January 12, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment would
revise Appendix 3A of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to more
fully reflect the permanently shutdown status of the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The revision would include a
limited set of exceptions and clarifications to referenced Regulatory
Guides to reflect the significantly reduced decay heat loads in the
SONGS Units 2 and 3 Spent Fuel Pools and to support corresponding
design basis changes and modifications that will allow for the
implementation of the ``cold and dark'' strategy outlined in the SONGS
Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report.
Date of issuance: March 11, 2016.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-233 and Unit 3-226: A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16055A522; 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: November 10, 2015 (80
FR 69715). The supplemental letters dated November 19, 2015, and
January 12, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 11, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: January 14, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated February 19, August 19, December 3, 2015 and January 25,
2016.
Brief description of amendments: The licensee requested to adopt
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications
Change Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01,
Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075), dated
February 21, 2013. The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on January 15, 2014 (79 FR 2700), as
part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
Date of issuance: February 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-287; Unit 2-287. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16042A173; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: The
amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: (80 FR 35986, June 23,
2015). The supplemental letters dated February 19, August 19, December
3, 2015 and January 25, 2016, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating
License, Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration, and
Opportunity for Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 1, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated March 3, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.1.2, ``Plant Systems--Emergency Feedwater
System,'' action statement b for two emergency feedwater pumps being
inoperable by adding a note to the statement ``be in at least HOT
STANDBY within 6 hours'' that extends this time period to 24 hours. The
extended action duration is needed to allow the testing of three
auxiliary feedwater flow control valves that was missed during the
previous refueling outage. This is a one-time change and expires on
March 18, 2016.
Date of issuance: March 9, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
immediately.
Amendment No.: 203. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16063A090; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was
published in The State, located in Columbia, South Carolina, on March 5
and March 6, 2016. The notice provided an opportunity to submit
comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination.

[[Page 17511]]

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and NSHC determination are
contained in a safety evaluation dated March 9, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-06939 Filed 3-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

17502 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance subject facility operating license or to rely to establish those facts or expert
of Amendments to Facility Operating combined license. Requests for a opinion. The petition must include
Licenses and Combined Licenses and hearing and a petition for leave to sufficient information to show that a
Proposed No Significant Hazards intervene shall be filed in accordance genuine dispute exists with the
Consideration Determination with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules applicant on a material issue of law or
The Commission has made a of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR fact. Contentions shall be limited to
proposed determination that the part 2. Interested person(s) should matters within the scope of the
following amendment requests involve consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, amendment under consideration. The
which is available at the NRC’s PDR, contention must be one which, if
no significant hazards consideration.
located at One White Flint North, Room proven, would entitle the requestor/
Under the Commission’s regulations in
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first petitioner to relief. A requestor/
§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The petitioner who fails to satisfy these
Regulations (10 CFR), this means that
NRC’s regulations are accessible requirements with respect to at least one
operation of the facility in accordance
electronically from the NRC Library on contention will not be permitted to
with the proposed amendment would
the NRC’s Web site at http:// participate as a party.
not (1) involve a significant increase in Those permitted to intervene become
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
the probability or consequences of an parties to the proceeding, subject to any
collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
accident previously evaluated, (2) create limitations in the order granting leave to
or petition for leave to intervene is filed
the possibility of a new or different kind within 60 days, the Commission or a intervene, and have the opportunity to
of accident from any accident presiding officer designated by the participate fully in the conduct of the
previously evaluated, or (3) involve a Commission or by the Chief hearing with respect to resolution of
significant reduction in a margin of Administrative Judge of the Atomic that person’s admitted contentions,
safety. The basis for this proposed Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will including the opportunity to present
determination for each amendment rule on the request and/or petition; and evidence and to submit a cross-
request is shown below. the Secretary or the Chief examination plan for cross-examination
The Commission is seeking public Administrative Judge of the Atomic of witnesses, consistent with NRC
comments on this proposed Safety and Licensing Board will issue a regulations, policies and procedures.
determination. Any comments received notice of a hearing or an appropriate Petitions for leave to intervene must
within 30 days after the date of order. be filed no later than 60 days from the
publication of this notice will be As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a date of publication of this notice.
considered in making any final petition for leave to intervene shall set Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
determination. forth with particularity the interest of to intervene, and motions for leave to
Normally, the Commission will not the petitioner in the proceeding, and file new or amended contentions that
issue the amendment until the how that interest may be affected by the are filed after the 60-day deadline will
expiration of 60 days after the date of results of the proceeding. The petition not be entertained absent a
publication of this notice. The should specifically explain the reasons determination by the presiding officer
Commission may issue the license why intervention should be permitted that the filing demonstrates good cause
amendment before expiration of the 60- with particular reference to the by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
day period provided that its final following general requirements: (1) The 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
determination is that the amendment name, address, and telephone number of If a hearing is requested, and the
involves no significant hazards the requestor or petitioner; (2) the Commission has not made a final
consideration. In addition, the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s determination on the issue of no
Commission may issue the amendment right under the Act to be made a party significant hazards consideration, the
prior to the expiration of the 30-day to the proceeding; (3) the nature and Commission will make a final
comment period should circumstances extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s determination on the issue of no
change during the 30-day comment property, financial, or other interest in significant hazards consideration. The
period such that failure to act in a the proceeding; and (4) the possible final determination will serve to decide
timely way would result, for example in effect of any decision or order which when the hearing is held. If the final
derating or shutdown of the facility. may be entered in the proceeding on the determination is that the amendment
Should the Commission take action requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The request involves no significant hazards
prior to the expiration of either the petition must also set forth the specific consideration, the Commission may
comment period or the notice period, it contentions which the requestor/ issue the amendment and make it
will publish in the Federal Register a petitioner seeks to have litigated at the immediately effective, notwithstanding
notice of issuance. Should the proceeding. the request for a hearing. Any hearing
Commission make a final No Significant Each contention must consist of a held would take place after issuance of
Hazards Consideration Determination, specific statement of the issue of law or the amendment. If the final
any hearing will take place after fact to be raised or controverted. In determination is that the amendment
issuance. The Commission expects that addition, the requestor/petitioner shall request involves a significant hazards
the need to take this action will occur provide a brief explanation of the bases consideration, then any hearing held
very infrequently. for the contention and a concise would take place before the issuance of
statement of the alleged facts or expert any amendment unless the Commission
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

opinion which support the contention finds an imminent danger to the health
and Petition for Leave To Intervene and on which the requestor/petitioner or safety of the public, in which case it
Within 60 days after the date of intends to rely in proving the contention will issue an appropriate order or rule
publication of this notice, any person(s) at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner under 10 CFR part 2.
whose interest may be affected by this must also provide references to those A State, local governmental body,
action may file a request for a hearing specific sources and documents of Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
and a petition to intervene with respect which the petitioner is aware and on agency thereof, may submit a petition to
to issuance of the amendment to the which the requestor/petitioner intends the Commission to participate as a party

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices 17503

under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
should state the nature and extent of the at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system
petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends
The petition should be submitted to the allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice
Commission by May 31, 2016. The representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The
petition must be filed in accordance documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email
with the filing instructions in the server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the
‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRC’s Office of the
section of this document, and should Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who
meet the requirements for petitions for submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary
leave to intervene set forth in this hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the
section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not
a State, local governmental body, or representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore,
agency thereof does not need to address this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or
the standing requirements in 10 CFR establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must
2.309(d) if the facility is located within hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID
its boundaries. A State, local Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/
governmental body, Federally- electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via
thereof may also have the opportunity to digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system.
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). NRC’s public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using
If a hearing is granted, any person www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
who does not wish, or is not qualified, getting-started.html. System may seek assistance by contacting the
to become a party to the proceeding requirements for accessing the E- NRC Meta System Help Desk through
may, in the discretion of the presiding Submittal server are detailed in the the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the
officer, be permitted to make a limited NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic NRC’s public Web site at http://
appearance pursuant to the provisions Submission,’’ which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a agency’s public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to
limited appearance may make an oral or www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-
written statement of position on the submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
issues, but may not otherwise attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available
participate in the proceeding. A limited on the Web site, but should note that the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
appearance may be made at any session NRC’s E-Filing system does not support Time, Monday through Friday,
of the hearing or at any prehearing unlisted software, and the NRC Meta excluding government holidays.
conference, subject to the limits and System Help Desk will not be able to Participants who believe that they
conditions as may be imposed by the offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting
presiding officer. Persons desiring to software. documents electronically must file an
make a limited appearance are If a participant is electronically exemption request, in accordance with
requested to inform the Secretary of the submitting a document to the NRC in 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
Commission by May 31, 2016. accordance with the E-Filing rule, the filing requesting authorization to
participant must file the document continue to submit documents in paper
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) using the NRC’s online, Web-based format. Such filings must be submitted
All documents filed in NRC submission form. In order to serve by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
adjudicatory proceedings, including a documents through the Electronic Office of the Secretary of the
request for hearing, a petition for leave Information Exchange System, users Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
to intervene, any motion or other will be required to install a Web Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
document filed in the proceeding prior browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
to the submission of a request for site. Further information on the Web- Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
hearing or petition to intervene, and based submission form, including the express mail, or expedited delivery
documents filed by interested installation of the Web browser plug-in, service to the Office of the Secretary,
governmental entities participating is available on the NRC’s public Web Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule submittals.html. Maryland, 20852, Attention:
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- Once a participant has obtained a Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Filing process requires participants to digital ID certificate and a docket has Participants filing a document in this
submit and serve all adjudicatory been created, the participant can then manner are responsible for serving the
documents over the internet, or in some submit a request for hearing or petition document on all other participants.
cases to mail copies on electronic for leave to intervene. Submissions Filing is considered complete by first-
storage media. Participants may not should be in Portable Document Format class mail as of the time of deposit in
submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRC’s public Web site expedited delivery service upon
accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- depositing the document with the
described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered provider of the service. A presiding
To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are officer, having granted an exemption
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing request from using E-Filing, may require
days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic a participant or party to use E-Filing if
participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing the presiding officer subsequently
the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern determines that the reason for granting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices 17505

reactor vessel are submitted to the NRC. Response: No. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
The licensee has provided a formal Margin of safety is associated with significant increase in the probability or
notification to the NRC of the intention confidence in the ability of the fission consequences of an accident previously
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor evaluated?
to permanently cease power operations Response: No.
coolant system pressure boundary, and
of JAF at the end of the current containment structure) to limit the level of The proposed change allows temporary
operating cycle. Once certifications for radiation dose to the public. The proposed conditions during which secondary
permanent cessation of operation and changes are associated with the JAF containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The
permanent removal of fuel from the Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact secondary containment is not an initiator of
reactor are submitted to the NRC, operation of the plant or its response to any accident previously evaluated. As a
reactor operation is no longer transients or accidents. The change does not result, the probability of any accident
affect the Technical Specifications. The previously evaluated is not increased. The
authorized and the spectrum of credible
proposed changes do not involve a change in consequences of an accident previously
accidents at the facility will be reduced. evaluated while utilizing the proposed
the method of plant operation, and no
The licensee states that certain on-shift change are no different than the
accident analyses will be affected by the
positions for the ERO that are needed proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance consequences of an accident while utilizing
during normal reactor operation will no criteria are not affected by the proposed the existing 4-hour Completion Time for an
longer be necessary to protect the public changes. The revised JAF Emergency Plan inoperable secondary containment. As a
health and safety from the risks will continue to provide the necessary result, the consequences of an accident
associated with spent fuel storage and response staff with the proposed changes. previously evaluated are not significantly
Therefore, the proposed amendment does increased.
decommissioning activities. Therefore, the proposed change does not
Basis for proposed no significant not involve a significant reduction in a
involve a significant increase in the
hazards consideration determination: margin of safety.
probability or consequences of an accident
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The NRC staff has reviewed the previously evaluated.
licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this 2. Does the proposed change create the
issue of no significant hazards review, it appears that the three possibility of a new or different kind of
consideration, which is presented accident from any accident previously
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are evaluated?
below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Response: No.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve proposes to determine that the The proposed change does not alter the
a significant increase in the probability or amendment request involves no protection system design, create new failure
consequences of an accident previously significant hazards consideration. modes, or change any modes of operation.
evaluated? Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, The proposed change does not involve a
Response: No. physical alteration of the plant, and no new
The proposed changes to the JAF
Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
or different kind of equipment will be
Emergency Plan do not impact the function Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton installed. Consequently, there are no new
of plant structures, systems, or components Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601. initiators that could result in a new or
(SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. different kind of accident.
accident initiators or precursors, nor does it Therefore, the proposed change does not
alter design assumptions. The proposed Exelon Generation Company, LLC, create the possibility of a new or different
changes do not prevent the ability of the on- Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, kind of accident from any accident
shift staff and ERO to perform their intended Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 previously evaluated.
functions to mitigate the consequences of any and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 3. Does the proposed change involve a
accident or event that will be credible in the significant reduction in a margin of safety?
permanently defueled condition. The Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Response: No.
proposed changes only remove positions that Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle The proposed change allows temporary
will no longer be credited in the JAF County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle conditions during which secondary
Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled County, Illinois containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The
condition. allowance for both an inner and outer
Therefore, the proposed amendment does Exelon Generation Company, LLC, secondary containment access door to be
not involve a significant increase in the Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad open simultaneously for entry and exit does
probability or consequences of an accident Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 not affect the safety function of the secondary
previously evaluated. and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois containment as the doors are promptly closed
2. Does the proposed amendment create after entry or exit, thereby restoring the
the possibility of a new or different kind of Date of amendment request: February secondary containment boundary. In
accident from any accident previously 3, 2016. A publicly-available version is addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous
evaluated? in ADAMS under Accession No. opening and closing of redundant secondary
Response: No. ML16034A542. containment access doors during normal
The proposed changes reduce the number Description of amendment request: entry and exit conditions does not affect the
of on-shift and ERO positions commensurate ability of the Standby Gas Treatment system
The proposed change would revise to establish the required secondary
with the hazards associated with a Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.2,
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. containment vacuum.
The proposed changes do not involve
for each facility, to provide an Therefore, the safety function of the
installation of new equipment or allowance for brief, inadvertent, secondary containment is not affected.
modification of existing equipment, so that simultaneous opening of redundant Therefore, the proposed change does not
no new equipment failure modes are secondary containment access doors involve a significant reduction in a margin of
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do during normal entry and exit safety.
not result in a change to the way that the conditions.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

The NRC staff has reviewed the
equipment or facility is operated so that no Basis for proposed no significant licensee’s analysis and, based on this
new accident initiators are created.
hazards consideration determination: review, it appears that the three
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
kind of accident from any previously licensee has provided its analysis of the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
evaluated. issue of no significant hazards proposes to determine that the
3. Does the proposed amendment involve consideration, which is presented requested amendments involve no
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? below: significant hazards consideration.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

17506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices

Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, kind of accident from any accident impact any safety analysis. The proposed
Associate General Counsel, Exelon previously evaluated. amendment does not impose any new
Generation Company, LLC, 4300 3. Does the proposed amendment involve radiological hazards to the plant staff or the
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? public.
Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois
Response: No. Therefore, the proposed amendment does
60555. The proposed change revises the limits on not involve an increase in the probability or
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Justin C. noble gas radioactivity in the primary consequences of an accident previously
Poole. coolant. The proposed change is consistent evaluated.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, with the assumptions in the safety analyses 2. Does the proposed amendment create
and will ensure the monitored values protect the possibility of a new or different kind of
Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
the initial assumptions in the safety analyses. accident from any accident previously
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York Based upon the reasoning presented above evaluated?
Date of amendment request: February and the previous discussion of the Response: No.
4, 2016. A publicly-available version is amendment request, the requested change This license amendment request revises TS
in ADAMS under Accession No. does not involve a significant hazards 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g consistent with two
ML16035A015. consideration. changes proposed in TSTF–258–A. The
Description of amendment request: Therefore, the proposed changes do not amendment will not change any equipment,
involve a significant reduction in a margin of does not require new equipment to be
The amendment would revise R.E. safety. installed, and will not change the way
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant’s Technical current equipment operates or is maintained.
Specifications limit for Reactor Coolant The NRC staff has reviewed the No credible failure mechanisms,
System (RCS) gross specific activity licensee’s analysis and, based on this malfunctions, or accident initiators are
with a new limit based upon RCS noble review, it appears that the three created by the proposed amendment.
gas specific activity. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Therefore, the proposed amendment does
Basis for proposed no significant satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff not create the possibility of a new or different
hazards consideration determination: proposes to determine that the kind of accident from any accident
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the amendment request involves no previously evaluated.
licensee has provided its analysis of the significant hazards consideration. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
issue of no significant hazards Response: No.
consideration, which is presented Associate General Counsel, Exelon
This license amendment request revises TS
below: Generation Company, LLC, 4300 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g consistent with two
Winfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois changes proposed in TSTF–258–A. The
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or 60555. amendment has no effect on the design,
consequences of an accident previously NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. testing, maintenance, or operation of plant
evaluated? structures, systems, or components. The
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating proposed amendment does not affect any
Response: No.
Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, safety analysis.
Reactor coolant specific activity is not an
initiator for any accident previously Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit Therefore, the proposed amendment does
evaluated. The Completion Time when No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio not involve a significant reduction in a
primary coolant gross activity is not within Date of application for amendment: margin of safety.
limit is not an initiator for any accident February 9, 2016. A publicly-available The NRC staff has reviewed the
previously evaluated. The current variable
limit on primary coolant iodine
version is in ADAMS under Accession licensee’s analysis and, based on this
concentration is not an initiator to any No. ML16041A115 review, it appears that the three
accident previously evaluated. As a result, Description of amendment request: standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
the proposed change does not significantly The amendment would revise the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
increase the probability of an accident. The technical specifications (TS) proposes to determine that the
proposed change will limit primary coolant requirements for limitations on the amendment request involves no
noble gases to concentrations consistent with radioactive material released in liquid significant hazards consideration.
the accident analyses. The proposed change and gaseous effluents and the references Attorney for licensee: David W.
to the Completion Time has no impact on the for the radioactive material effluent
consequences of any design basis accident Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
since the consequences of an accident during requirements. Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76
the extended Completion Time are the same Basis for proposed no significant South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44308.
as the consequences of an accident during hazards consideration determination: [Acting] NRC Branch Chief: Justin C.
the Completion Time. As a result, the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Poole.
consequences of any accident previously licensee has provided its analysis of the
evaluated are not significantly increased. issue of no significant hazards Florida Power & Light Company, et al.,
Therefore, the proposed changes do not consideration, which is presented Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St.
involve a significant increase in the below, along with NRC edits in square Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie
probability or consequences of an accident County, Florida
previously evaluated.
brackets:
2. Does the proposed amendment create 1. Does the proposed amendment involve Date of amendment request: January
the possibility of a new or different kind of a significant increase in the probability or 19, 2016. A publicly-available version is
accident from any accident previously consequences of an accident previously in ADAMS under Accession No.
evaluated? evaluated? ML16033A472.
Response: No. Response: No.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Description of amendment request:
The proposed change in specific activity This license amendment request revises TS The amendments would revise the
limits does not alter any physical part of the 5.5.3.b and TS 5.5.3.g consistent with two Operating Licenses’ licensing basis to
plant nor does it affect any plant operating changes proposed in [Technical Specification
parameter. The change does not create the Task Force] TSTF–258–A. The amendment
allow elimination of the end-of-cycle
potential for a new or different kind of has no effect on the design, testing, or moderator temperature coefficient
accident from any previously calculated. operation of plant structures, systems, or (MTC) surveillance test as supported by
Therefore, the proposed changes do not components. The proposed amendment does NRC-Approved Topical Report CE
create the possibility of a new or different not affect any accident initiators and does not NPSD–911–A and Amendment 1–A,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices 17507

‘‘Analysis of Moderator Temperature installed) or a change in the methods licensing basis documents. The
Coefficients in Support of a Change in governing normal plant operation. proposed changes are consistent with
the Technical Specification End-of- Therefore, the proposed changes do not those generically approved in WCAP–
Cycle Negative MTC Limit,’’ and St. create the possibility of a new or different 17524–P–A, Revision 1, ‘‘AP1000 Core
kind of accident from any accident
Lucie specific supporting information. previously evaluated.
Reference Report.’’ Basis for proposed
This amendment request also proposes 3. Does the proposed change involve a no significant hazards consideration
to add previously NRC approved significant reduction in a margin of safety? determination: As required by 10 CFR
Westinghouse PARAGON Topical Response: No. 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
Report WCAP–16045–P–A, Revision 0, A change is proposed to eliminate the analysis of the issue of no significant
‘‘Qualification of the Two-Dimensional measurement of EOC MTC if the BOC hazards consideration, which is
Transport Code PARAGON,’’ to the measurements are within a given tolerance of presented below:
Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification the design values. The Topical Report CE
NPSD–911–A and Amendment 1–A, with 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
list of Core Operating Limits Report a significant increase in the probability or
additional justification provided in this
(COLR) methodologies. amendment request, concluded that the risk consequences of an accident previously
Basis for proposed no significant of not measuring the EOC MTC is acceptably evaluated?
hazards consideration determination: Response: No.
small provided that the BOC measured
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The proposed changes will revise the
values are within a specific tolerance of the
licensing basis documents related to the fuel
licensee has provided its analysis of the design values. Also, WCAP–16045–P–A
system design, nuclear design, thermal
issue of no significant hazards proposed to be added to TS 6.9.1.11, has
hydraulic design, and accident analyses.
consideration, which is presented been previously approved by the NRC for The UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses
below: licensing applications to be used consistent describe the analyses of various design basis
with the approved methodologies. transients and accidents to demonstrate
1. Does the proposed change involve a Therefore, the proposed changes do not
significant increase in the probability or compliance of the AP1000 design with the
involve a significant reduction in a margin of acceptance criteria for these events. The
consequences of an accident previously safety. acceptance criteria for the various events are
evaluated?
The NRC staff has reviewed the based on meeting the relevant regulations,
Response: No.
licensee’s analysis and, based on this general design criteria, the Standard Review
A change is proposed to eliminate the
review, it appears that the three Plan, and are a function of the anticipated
measurement of end-of-cycle (EOC)
frequency of occurrence of the event and
moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) if standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. potential radiological consequences to the
the beginning-of-cycle (BOC) measurements Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to public. As such, each design-basis event is
are within a given tolerance of the design determine that the amendment request categorized accordingly based on these
values. MTC is not an initiator of any involves no significant hazards considerations. As discussed in Section 5.3
accident previously evaluated. Consequently,
consideration. of WCAP–17524–P–A Revision 1, the revised
the probability of an accident previously
Attorney for licensee: William S. accident analyses maintain their plant
evaluated is not significantly increased. conditions, and thus their frequency
The EOC MTC value is an important Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 designation and consequence level as
assumption in determining the consequences previously evaluated. As confirmed in the
of accidents previously evaluated. The Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/JB, Juno
Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the revised
analysis presented in the Topical Report CE Beach, Florida 33408–0420. analyses meet the applicable guidelines in
NPSD–911–A and Amendment 1–A, with NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. the Standard Review Plan.
additional justification provided in this Beasley. Therefore, the proposed amendment does
amendment request, determined that the EOC not involve an increase in the probability or
MTC will be within design limits if the BOC Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
consequences of an accident previously
MTC design values are within a given Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle evaluated.
tolerance of the measured values. Therefore, Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 2. Does the proposed amendment create
the EOC MTC will continue to be within 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia the possibility of a new or different kind of
design limits and the consequences of accident from any accident previously
accidents will continue to be as previously
Date of amendment request: January
29, 2016. A publicly-available version is evaluated?
evaluated. Response: No.
The addition of WCAP–16045–P–A, which in ADAMS under Accession No. The proposed changes will revise the
has been previously approved by the NRC for ML16029A476. licensing basis documents related to the fuel
licensing applications to TS 6.9.1.11.b, is an Description of amendment request: system design, nuclear design, thermal
administrative change which has no impact The proposed change would amend hydraulic design, and accident analyses.
on the probability or consequences of any Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and The proposed changes would not introduce
accident previously evaluated. NPF–92 for the Vogtle Electric a new failure mode, fault, or sequence of
As a result, the proposed changes do not Generating Plant Units 3 and 4. The events that could result in a radioactive
involve a significant increase in the requested amendment proposes to material release. The proposed changes do
probability or consequences of an accident not alter the design, configuration, or method
previously evaluated.
depart from approved AP1000 Design
of operation of the plant beyond standard
2. Does the proposed change create the Control Documents (DCD) Tier 2 functional capabilities of the equipment.
possibility of a new or different kind of information (text, tables, and figures) Therefore, this activity does not create the
accident from any accident previously and involved Tier 2* information (as possibility of a new or different kind of
evaluated? incorporated into the Updated Final accident from any accident previously
Response: No. Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) as evaluated.
A change is proposed to eliminate the 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

plant specific DCD information), and
measurement of EOC MTC if the BOC also involves a change to the plant- a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
measurements are within a given tolerance of specific Technical Specifications. Response: No.
the design values. Also, a new previously The proposed changes will revise the
approved methodology is proposed to be
Specifically, the amendment request licensing basis documents related to the fuel
included in the TS list of COLR proposed changes to the plant-specific system design, nuclear design, thermal
methodologies. The proposed changes do not AP1000 fuel system design, nuclear hydraulic design, and accident analyses.
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no design, thermal hydraulic design, and Safety margins are applied at many levels
new or different type of equipment will be accident analyses as described in the to the design and licensing basis functions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Notices 17511

The Commission’s related evaluation estimate of the burden of the collection processing and overall program integrity
of the amendment, finding of exigent of the information; (c) ways to enhance as recommended by the RRB’s Office of
circumstances, state consultation, and the quality, utility, and clarity of the Inspector General and the Government
NSHC determination are contained in a information to be collected; and (d) Accountability Office.
safety evaluation dated March 9, 2016. ways to minimize the burden related to Proposed changes to Form G–251
No significant hazards consideration the collection of information on include the consolidation and revision
comments received: No. respondents, including the use of of existing items that request
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day automated collection techniques or information about essential job duties
of March 2016. other forms of information technology. performed and any exposure to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Title and purpose of information environmental hazards; the expansion
Anne T. Boland,
collection: Vocational Report; OMB of existing items that provide
3220–0141. Section 2 of the Railroad information regarding an applicant’s
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Retirement Act (RRA) provides for physical actions or work activities and
Regulation. payment of disability annuities to the amount of time that they expend on
[FR Doc. 2016–06939 Filed 3–28–16; 8:45 am]
qualified employees and widow(ers). such activities during an average 8 hour
The establishment of permanent work day to include Balancing,
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
disability for work in the applicant’s Twisting/Turning, Crawling, Gripping/
‘‘regular occupation’’ or for work in any Holding, Foot Control, and Fine
regular employment is prescribed in 20 Manipulation; and the addition of new
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD CFR 220.12 and 220.13 respectively. items that request information regarding
The RRB utilizes Form G–251,
Proposed Collection; Comment any permanent working
Vocational Report, to obtain an
Request accommodations an employer may have
applicant’s work history. This made due to the employee’s disability
SUMMARY: In accordance with the information is used by the RRB to are also proposed.
requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of determine the effect of a disability on an
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 applicant’s ability to work. Form G–251 Other minor changes proposed
which provides opportunity for public is designed for use with the RRB’s include revisions to the ‘‘Identifying
comment on new or revised data disability benefit application forms and Information’’ section to add ‘‘Province’’
collections, the Railroad Retirement is provided to all applicants for to the address field for applicants who
Board (RRB) will publish periodic employee disability annuities and to may live outside the U.S. and to provide
summaries of proposed data collections. those applicants for a widow(er)’s for an additional telephone number.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether disability annuity who indicate that Minor non-burden impacting, editorial
the proposed information collection is they have been employed at some time. and formatting changes are also
necessary for the proper performance of Significant changes are proposed to proposed.
the functions of the agency, including Form G–251 in support of the RRB’s Completion is required to obtain or
whether the information has practical Disability Program Improvement Project retain a benefit. One response is
utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s to enhance/improve disability case requested of each respondent.

ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN
Annual
Form No. Time (minutes) Burden (hours)
responses

G–251 (with assistance) .............................................................................................................. 5,730 40 3,820
G–251 (without assistance) ......................................................................................................... 270 50 225

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 6,000 ........................ 4,045

Additional Information or Comments: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE notice is hereby given that on March 14,
To request more information or to COMMISSION 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (‘‘Exchange’’)
obtain a copy of the information filed with the Securities and Exchange
collection justification, forms, and/or [Release No. 34–77429; File No. SR–BX– Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
supporting material, contact Dana 2016–017] proposed rule change as described in
Hickman at (312) 751–4981 or Items I, II, and III, below, which Items
Self-Regulatory Organizations; have been substantially prepared by the
Dana.Hickman@RRB.GOV. Comments
NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Exchange. The Commission is
regarding the information collection
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed publishing this notice to solicit
should be addressed to Charles Rule Change To Amend Chapter XI
Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, comments on the proposed rule change
(Doing Business With the Public), from interested persons.
844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois Section 8 (Supervision of Accounts) of
60611–2092 or emailed to the Exchange’s Rulebook I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV. Written
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Statement of the Terms of Substance of
comments should be received within 60 March 23, 2016. the Proposed Rule Change
days of this notice. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 The Exchange proposes to amend
Charles Mierzwa,
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 Chapter XI (Doing Business with the
Chief of Information Resources Management. Public), Section 8 (Supervision of
[FR Doc. 2016–07130 Filed 3–28–16; 8:45 am] 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Accounts) of the Exchange’s rulebook to
BILLING CODE 7905–01–P 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. remove outdated references to three

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

Document Created: 2016-03-30 08:29:02
Document Modified: 2016-03-30 08:29:02

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 April 28, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 31, 2016.
Contact		Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email: [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 17501