81_FR_24739 81 FR 24659 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

81 FR 24659 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 80 (April 26, 2016)

Page Range24659-24667
FR Document2016-09543

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 29 to April 11, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on April 12, 2016.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016) 
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24659-24667]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09543]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0083]


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 29 to April 11, 2016. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 12, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 26, 2016. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 27, 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-2016-0083. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0083 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-2016-0083.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 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-2016-0083, 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 enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions To remove 
such information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

[[Page 24660]]

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 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 June 
27, 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

[[Page 24661]]

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 June 27, 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 [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 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 at of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require 
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a 
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection

[[Page 24662]]

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.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16015A112.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2. The proposed change eliminates TS 3.7.14, ``Primary Auxiliary 
Building Ventilation (VNPAB),'' in its entirety on the basis that the 
VNPAB is not credited for accident mitigation and meets none of the 
criteria of 10 CFR 50.36 for inclusion in the TS.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not impact the physical configuration 
or function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or 
the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses are 
affected by the proposed changes.
    The control room dose analysis for a loss of coolant accident 
using alternate source term (AST) initially credited operation of 
the VNPAB exhaust system. However, the analysis was subsequently 
revised to remove credit for the VNPAB prior to NRC final approval 
of implementation of AST. As a result, NextEra is proposing to 
remove the VNPAB system from the TS. The VNPAB system is not an 
initiator of accidents and does not function to mitigate the 
consequences of DBAs [design-basis accidents].
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for 
existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. 
Additionally, the proposed change does not involve a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation, and all safety functions 
will continue to perform as previously assumed in the accident 
analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the 
design function or operation of any structures, systems, and 
components important to safety.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. 
The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity 
of any safety-related system.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no [effect] 
on the availability, operability, or performance of safety-related 
systems and components. The proposed change will not adversely 
affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment 
assumed in the accident analysis.
    The proposed amendment does not involve changes to any safety 
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system 
settings. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating 
margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety 
analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: February 12, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16043A217.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
facility operating licenses and the technical specifications (TSs) for 
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The proposed changes to the 
operating licenses, which are administrative in nature, remove license 
conditions that have been completed and are no longer in effect. The 
proposed change to the TSs revise the ventilation filter testing 
program by changing the value for methyl iodide penetration for the 
control room emergency filtration system.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment includes a change to delete license 
conditions that are complete or otherwise obsolete. This change is 
strictly administrative in nature. The proposed amendment also 
revises the charcoal testing criteria in TS 5.5.10, Ventilation 
Filter Testing Program. The proposed changes do not impact the 
physical configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. No actual facility 
equipment or accident analyses are affected by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The 
proposed changes do not create any new failure modes for existing 
equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally, the 
proposed changes do not involve a change in the methods governing 
normal plant operation, and all safety functions will continue to 
perform as previously assumed in the accident analyses. Thus, the 
proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or 
operation of any structures, systems, and components important to 
safety.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
The proposed changes do not challenge the performance or integrity 
of any safety-related system.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is

[[Page 24663]]

unchanged. The proposed changes will have no effect on the 
availability, operability, or performance of safety-related systems 
and components. The proposed change will not adversely affect the 
operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in 
the accident analysis.
    The proposed amendment does not involve changes to any safety 
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system 
settings. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating 
margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety 
analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P. O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: February 10, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16047A336.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.11, ``Primary Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to increase the containment integrated 
leakage rate test program Test A interval from 10 to 15 years.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment involves a permanent change to extend the 
Type A containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) interval from 10 
to 15 years. The proposed extension does not involve either a 
physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the 
plant is operated or maintained. The containment is designed to 
provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled 
release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated 
accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements 
invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment 
exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of 
an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of 
any precursors of an accident.
    The effect of changing the Type A test frequency to once every 
15 years, measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk 
(for accident sequences influenced by Type A testing), is less than 
or equal to the criteria established in [Electric Power Research 
Institute (EPRI)] Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A. Moreover, the 
risk impact for the ILRT extension when compared to other severe 
accident risks is negligible. In addition, as documented in NUREG-
1493, Type B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of 
containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage 
paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The 
MNGP Type A test history supports this conclusion.
    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of 
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, 
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined 
as those which involve degradation due to system and/or component 
modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and 
administrative controls such as configuration management and 
procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that 
containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or 
maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of 
the containment combined with the containment inspections performed 
in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
[Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] Section XI, and TS requirements 
provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not 
degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test.
    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 TS change involves a permanent extension of the 
Type A containment test interval from 10 to 15 years. The 
containment testing requirements which periodically demonstrate the 
integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) nor does the proposed 
change alter the design, configuration, or the manner in which the 
plant is operated or controlled beyond the standard functional 
capabilities of the equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS change involves a permanent extension of the 
Type A containment test interval from 10 to 15 years. The specific 
requirements and conditions of the Primary Containment Leak Rate 
Testing Program exist to ensure that the required degree of 
containment structural integrity and leak-tightness considered in 
the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment 
leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
    The proposed change involves only an extension of the interval 
between Type A test performances for MNGP. Extension of the proposed 
surveillance interval is in accordance with the 15-year ILRT 
Interval determined acceptable by the NRC utilizing the guidance of 
[Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)] 94-01, Revision 2-A. Industry 
experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects 
a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the 
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by 
Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in 
accordance with ASME Section XI, and the TS serve to provide a high 
degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a 
manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of 
these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety 
analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and 
acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests 
specified in applicable codes and standards continue to be met with 
the acceptance of this proposed change because these criteria are 
not affected by the proposed change to the Type A test interval.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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: November 24, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15328A515.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to 
rename, relocate, and add radiation detectors to provide monitoring of 
the radiologically controlled area ventilation system (VAS) exhaust 
from the radiologically controlled areas of the

[[Page 24664]]

auxiliary building and annex building. The amendment proposes changes 
in the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 
information, and departure from certified AP1000 Design Control 
Document (DCD) Tier 1 information. It also requires conforming changes 
to Combined License Appendix C, ``Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 
Acceptance Criteria.'' Because this proposed change requires a 
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 
1000 DCD, the licensee also requested an exemption from the 
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The design functions of the VAS include prevention of the 
unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or 
adjacent plant areas by providing monitoring of the VAS exhaust from 
radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building and annex 
building, and to automatically isolate the selected building areas 
and start the containment air filtration system (VFS) upon detection 
of high radioactivity. The proposed changes to the VAS to relocate 
and add radiation detectors are acceptable as they maintain these 
design functions.
    These proposed changes to the VAS design as described in the 
current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the 
design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect 
the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems 
required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no 
change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated 
accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive 
releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response 
to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not 
adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes described create any 
new accident precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise the VAS design as described in the 
current licensing basis to enable the system to perform required 
design functions, and are consistent with other UFSAR information. 
The proposed changes do not change the design requirements for the 
system. The relocated and new VAS radiation detectors are designed 
to the same equipment specifications, including required sensitivity 
and range, as the existing radiation detectors. The relocated and 
new VAS radiation detectors monitor the same parameters, as well as 
perform the same design functions, as the existing radiation 
detectors. The proposed changes to the system do not result in a new 
failure mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No 
design function described in the UFSAR is adversely affected by the 
proposed changes. The proposed changes do not result in a new 
failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect 
safety or safety-related equipment. The proposed changes do not 
allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new 
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of 
events that would result in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not change the codes or standards for 
the radiation detectors, or functionality of the ductwork in the 
auxiliary building and annex building. The proposed changes have no 
adverse effect on the nonsafety-related system design functions of 
the VAS for the prevention of the unmonitored release of airborne 
radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent plant areas by providing 
monitoring of the VAS exhaust from radiologically controlled areas 
of the auxiliary building and annex building, and to automatically 
isolate the selected building areas and start the VFS upon detection 
of high radioactivity. The proposed changes do not affect safety-
related equipment or equipment whose failure could initiate an 
accident. The proposed changes to relocate and add radiation 
detectors do not adversely interface with safety-related equipment 
or fission product barriers. Therefore, the proposed changes do not 
affect any safety-related equipment, design code, function, design 
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. 
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the requested changes, thus, no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: John McKirgan.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 
52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1, 2, 3, 
and 4, Burke County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 
Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 
Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama, Docket Nos. 50-321 
and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, City of 
Dalton, GA
    Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16071A110.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment requests NRC 
approval for the adoption of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, 
Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive 
Reactors,'' to replace the Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes for 
VEGP, FNP, and HNP that are currently based on Revision 4 of NEI 99-01. 
Additionally, SNC proposes changes to the radiation monitors at FNP.
    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.
    Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed 
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in 
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for 
Non-Passive Reactors,'' do not reduce the capability to meet the 
emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 
CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the 
functionality, performance, or capability of SNC's [emergency 
response organization (ERO)] to respond in mitigating the 
consequences of any design basis accident.
    The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation 
of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the 
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the 
Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, ``Planning Basis,'' of 
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of 
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of 
Nuclear Power Plants:''

    ``. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to 
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for

[[Page 24665]]

a spectrum of accidents * * * No single specific accident sequence 
should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each 
accident could have different consequences, both in nature and 
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning 
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no 
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident 
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst 
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood * * *. 
.''
    Therefore, SNC did not consider the risk insights regarding any 
specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the 
proposed changes.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to 
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any 
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect 
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which 
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components 
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the EAL schemes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    [FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--The proposed changes to the 
[FNP] EALs resulting from the proposed modification of the RE-60 
radiation monitors do not impact the physical function of SSCs or 
the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, 
nor alter design assumptions.
    While the proposed change will alter the design configuration of 
the plant by replacing and relocating radiation monitors RE-60-A, B 
and C and by abandoning RE-60D, the proposed change does not alter 
or prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended 
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within 
assumed acceptance limits. Similarly, while these instruments 
monitor and provide information on the consequences of an accident, 
the radiation monitors perform no safety function that directly 
mitigates the consequences of an accident. Further, no operating 
procedures or administrative controls that function to prevent or 
mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from 
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors 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.
    Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed 
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in 
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant 
systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the 
addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not 
alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant 
equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. All SNC ERO 
functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed 
changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the EAL schemes do not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those 
that have been previously evaluated.
    [FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--The proposed change to the [FNP] 
EALs resulting from the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation 
monitors does not impact the [FNP] accident analysis. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of safety-related SSCs (i.e., 
no new or different type of safety-related SSC will be installed), a 
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. 
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change revises EALs, which 
establish the thresholds for placing the plant in an emergency 
classification. EALs are not initiators of any accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from 
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed 
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in 
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a design basis or 
safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis 
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that 
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed 
changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental 
conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. 
Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt 
the NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue 
to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to SNC's EAL schemes do not 
involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
    [FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--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 change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from the 
proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors does not 
impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or 
accidents. The change does not affect the Technical Specifications 
or the Operating License. The proposed change does not involve a 
change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses 
will be affected by the proposed change.
    Additionally, the proposed change will not relax any criteria 
used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system 
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition.
    Therefore, the proposed change to the Farley EALs resulting from 
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors 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: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of 
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness 
Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

[[Page 24666]]

assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has 
prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances 
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that 
assessment, it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: March 2, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 31, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
specifications (TSs) by (1) aligning the peak calculated primary 
containment internal pressure (Pa) for the design basis loss 
of coolant accident in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the 10 CFR 50 
Appendix, J, Option B definition of Pa, and (2) revising the 
acceptable methods of surveillance for leakage rate testing of the 
containment air lock door seals.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 326. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16068A312; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 
43126). The supplemental letter dated August 31, 2015, provided 
additional information that expanded the scope of the application as 
originally noticed. A notice published in the Federal Register on 
February 22, 2016 (81 FR 8752), superseded the original notice in its 
entirety to reflect the expanded scope of the proposed amendment and 
include the staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan
    Date of amendment request: September 24, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted the note 
associated with Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4 to reflect the 
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system design and ensure the RHR system 
operation is consistent with TS 3.5.1 Limiting Condition for Operation 
requirements.
    Date of issuance: April 5, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 203. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16054A637; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: This amendment revises the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 
FR 73235).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
    Date of amendment request: June 22, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Cyber Security Plan Implementation 
Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date from June 30, 2016, to 
December 15, 2017.
    Date of issuance: April 6, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 311. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16062A388; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 
46349).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 17, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/4.9.5, 
``Communications,'' and TS 3/4.9.6, ``Manipulator Crane.'' The 
amendments require the licensee to relocate the requirements to the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and related procedures to be 
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and 
experiments.''
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 269 (Unit No. 3) and 264 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16040A373; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 
65813). The supplemental letter dated November 17, 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 29, 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 22, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 14, 2013; February 24, March 25, April 25, July 14, 
August 27, September 10, and October 10, 2014; and March 10, April 1, 
April 20, May 12, August 21, and October 22, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments transition the fire 
protection program to a new risk-informed, performance-based 
alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates by 
reference the National Fire Protection Association

[[Page 24667]]

(NFPA) Standard 805 (NFPA 805), ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire 
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001 
Edition. Copies of NFPA 805 may be purchased from the NFPA Customer 
Service Department, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, 
Massachusetts 02269-9101 and in PDF format through the NFPA Online 
Catalog (http://www.nfpa.org) or by calling 1-800-344-3555 or 617-770-
3000. Copies are also available for inspection at the NRC Library, Two 
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-
2738, and at the NRC PDR, One White Flint North, Room O1-F15, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
as described in the transition license conditions.
    Amendment Nos.: 231 and 181. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15344A346; 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 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 26, 2013 (78 
FR 78407). The supplemental letters dated February 24, March 25, April 
25, July 14, August 27, September 10, and October 10, 2014; and March 
10, April 1, April 20, May 12, August 21, and October 22, 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 31, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: July 24, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs), which currently 
require operation of ventilation systems with charcoal filters for a 
10-hour period at a monthly frequency. The SRs are revised to require 
operation of the systems for 15 continuous minutes at a monthly 
frequency.
    Date of issuance: April 5, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 287. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16084A755; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 
61485).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 
2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 3, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised certain 
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System 
Instrumentation,'' actions. Specifically, TS Table 3.3-1, Action 2, is 
revised to allow one power range (PR) channel to be bypassed for up to 
4 hours for surveillance testing, and two new action notes are 
established for the PR nuclear instrumentation in TS Table 4.3-1. The 
changes support the installation and use of bypass test capability for 
the PR nuclear instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
at Salem, Unit No. 1, prior to returning to the MODE of applicability 
following refueling outage 1R24, and at Salem, Unit No. 2, prior to 
returning to the MODE of applicability following refueling outage 2R22.
    Amendment Nos.: 312 (Unit No. 1) and 293 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16054A068; 
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: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 
38776). The supplemental letter dated 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of April 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-09543 Filed 4-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices 24659 Commission, Washington DC 20555– proposed to be issued, from March 29 to it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY 0001; telephone: 301–415–6020, email: April 11, 2016. The last biweekly notice INFORMATION section of this document. Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov. was published on April 12, 2016. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Comments must be filed by May purchase copies of public documents at In the FR on April 19, 2016, in FR 26, 2016. A request for a hearing must the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One Doc. 2016–09042, on page 23011, in the be filed by June 27, 2016. White Flint North, 11555 Rockville second column, the third line of the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. heading, correct ‘‘NRC–2016–0076’’ to by any of the following methods (unless B. Submitting Comments read ‘‘NRC–2016–0075.’’ On the same this document describes a different Please include Docket ID NRC–2016– page, in the third column, correct the method for submitting comments on a 0083, facility name, unit number(s), following: specific subject): application date, and subject in your • The sixth line, correct ‘‘NRC–2016– • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to comment submission. 0076’’ to read ‘‘NRC–2016–0075’’; http://www.regulations.gov and search The NRC cautions you not to include • the fourth line after the for Docket ID NRC–2016–0083. Address identifying or contact information that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section questions about NRC dockets to Carol you do not want to be publicly heading, correct ‘‘NRC–2016–0076’’ to Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; disclosed in your comment submission. read ‘‘NRC–2016–0075’’; and email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For The NRC posts all comment • the twelfth line after the technical questions, contact the submissions at http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section individual listed in the FOR FURTHER www.regulations.gov, as well as enter heading, correct ‘‘NRC–2016–0076’’ to INFORMATION CONTACT section of this the comment submissions into ADAMS. read ‘‘NRC–2016–0075.’’ document. The NRC does not routinely edit On page 23012, in the first column, • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, comment submissions to remove the fourth line, correct ‘‘NRC–2016– Office of Administration, Mail Stop: identifying or contact information. 0076’’ to read ‘‘NRC–2016–0075.’’ OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear If you are requesting or aggregating Regulatory Commission, Washington, comments from other persons for Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of April 2016. DC 20555–0001. submission to the NRC, then you should For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For additional direction on obtaining inform those persons not to include Cindy Bladey, information and submitting comments, identifying or contact information that see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Branch Chief, Rules, Announcements and they do not want to be publicly Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Submitting Comments’’ in the disclosed in their comment submission. Services, Office of Administration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Your request should state that the NRC this document. [FR Doc. 2016–09682 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] does not routinely edit comment FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 7590–01–P submissions to remove such information Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear before making the comment Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear submissions To remove such NUCLEAR REGULATORY Regulatory Commission, Washington, information before making the comment COMMISSION DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– submissions available to the public or 1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov. entering the comment submissions into [NRC–2016–0083] I. Obtaining Information and ADAMS. Applications and Amendments to Submitting Comments II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance Facility Operating Licenses and A. Obtaining Information of Amendments to Facility Operating Combined Licenses Involving No Licenses and Combined Licenses and Significant Hazards Considerations Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– 0083 when contacting the NRC about Proposed No Significant Hazards AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory the availability of information for this Consideration Determination Commission. action. You may obtain publicly- The Commission has made a ACTION: Biweekly notice. available information related to this proposed determination that the action by any of the following methods: following amendment requests involve SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to no significant hazards consideration. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as http://www.regulations.gov and search Under the Commission’s regulations in amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear for Docket ID NRC–2016–0083. § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulatory Commission (NRC) is • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Regulations (10 CFR), this means that publishing this regular biweekly notice. Access and Management System operation of the facility in accordance The Act requires the Commission to (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- with the proposed amendment would publish notice of any amendments available documents online in the not (1) involve a significant increase in issued, or proposed to be issued, and ADAMS Public Documents collection at the probability or consequences of an grants the Commission the authority to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ accident previously evaluated; (2) create issue and make immediately effective adams.html. To begin the search, select the possibility of a new or different kind any amendment to an operating license ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then of accident from any accident or combined license, as applicable, select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS previously evaluated; or (3) involve a mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES upon a determination by the Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, significant reduction in a margin of Commission that such amendment please contact the NRC’s Public safety. The basis for this proposed involves no significant hazards Document Room (PDR) reference staff at determination for each amendment consideration, notwithstanding the 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by request is shown below. pendency before the Commission of a email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The The Commission is seeking public request for a hearing from any person. ADAMS accession number for each comments on this proposed This biweekly notice includes all document referenced (if it is available in determination. Any comments received notices of amendments issued, or ADAMS) is provided the first time that within 30 days after the date of VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

24660 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices 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). If a hearing is determination is that the amendment name, address, and telephone number of requested, and the Commission has not involves no significant hazards the requestor or petitioner; (2) the made a final determination on the issue consideration. In addition, the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s of no significant hazards consideration, Commission may issue the amendment right under the Act to be made a party the Commission will make a final prior to the expiration of the 30-day to the proceeding; (3) the nature and determination on the issue of no comment period should circumstances extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s significant hazards consideration. The change during the 30-day comment property, financial, or other interest in final determination will serve to decide period such that failure to act in a the proceeding; and (4) the possible when the hearing is held. If the final timely way would result, for example in effect of any decision or order which determination is that the amendment derating or shutdown of the facility. may be entered in the proceeding on the request involves no significant hazards Should the Commission take action requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The consideration, the Commission may prior to the expiration of either the petition must also set forth the specific issue the amendment and make it comment period or the notice period, it contentions which the requestor/ immediately effective, notwithstanding will publish in the Federal Register a petitioner seeks to have litigated at the the request for a hearing. Any hearing notice of issuance. Should the proceeding. held would take place after issuance of Commission make a final No Significant Each contention must consist of a the amendment. If the final Hazards Consideration Determination, specific statement of the issue of law or determination is that the amendment any hearing will take place after fact to be raised or controverted. In request involves a significant hazards issuance. The Commission expects that addition, the requestor/petitioner shall consideration, then any hearing held the need to take this action will occur provide a brief explanation of the bases would take place before the issuance of very infrequently. for the contention and a concise any amendment unless the Commission statement of the alleged facts or expert finds an imminent danger to the health A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing opinion which support the contention or safety of the public, in which case it and Petition for Leave To Intervene and on which the requestor/petitioner will issue an appropriate order or rule Within 60 days after the date of intends to rely in proving the contention under 10 CFR part 2. publication of this notice, any person(s) at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner A State, local governmental body, whose interest may be affected by this must also provide references to those federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or action may file a request for a hearing specific sources and documents of agency thereof, may submit a petition to and a petition to intervene with respect which the petitioner is aware and on the Commission to participate as a party to issuance of the amendment to the which the requestor/petitioner intends under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition subject facility operating license or to rely to establish those facts or expert should state the nature and extent of the combined license. Requests for a opinion. The petition must include petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. hearing and a petition for leave to sufficient information to show that a The petition should be submitted to the intervene shall be filed in accordance genuine dispute exists with the Commission by June 27, 2016. The with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules applicant on a material issue of law or petition must be filed in accordance of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR fact. Contentions shall be limited to with the filing instructions in the part 2. Interested person(s) should matters within the scope of the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, amendment under consideration. The section of this document, and should which is available at the NRC’s PDR, contention must be one which, if meet the requirements for petitions for located at One White Flint North, Room proven, would entitle the requestor/ leave to intervene set forth in this O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first petitioner to relief. A requestor/ section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The petitioner who fails to satisfy these a State, local governmental body, or NRC’s regulations are accessible requirements with respect to at least one Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or electronically from the NRC Library on contention will not be permitted to agency thereof does not need to address the NRC’s Web site at http:// participate as a party. the standing requirements in 10 CFR www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- Those permitted to intervene become 2.309(d) if the facility is located within collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing parties to the proceeding, subject to any its boundaries. A State, local or petition for leave to intervene is filed limitations in the order granting leave to governmental body, Federally- within 60 days, the Commission or a intervene, and have the opportunity to recognized Indian Tribe, or agency presiding officer designated by the participate fully in the conduct of the thereof may also have the opportunity to Commission or by the Chief hearing with respect to resolution of participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Administrative Judge of the Atomic that person’s admitted contentions, If a hearing is granted, any person Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will including the opportunity to present who does not wish, or is not qualified, rule on the request and/or petition; and evidence and to submit a cross- to become a party to the proceeding the Secretary or the Chief examination plan for cross-examination may, in the discretion of the presiding Administrative Judge of the Atomic of witnesses, consistent with NRC officer, be permitted to make a limited Safety and Licensing Board will issue a regulations, policies and procedures. appearance pursuant to the provisions notice of a hearing or an appropriate Petitions for leave to intervene must of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a order. be filed no later than 60 days from the limited appearance may make an oral or VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices 24661 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 June 27, 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: Rulemaking (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- Once a participant has obtained a and Adjudications Staff. Participants Filing process requires participants to digital ID certificate and a docket has filing a document in this manner are submit and serve all adjudicatory been created, the participant can then responsible for serving the document on documents over the internet, or in some submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is cases to mail copies on electronic for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail storage media. Participants may not should be in Portable Document Format at of the time of deposit in the mail, or submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRC’s public Web site delivery service upon depositing the accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic or party to use E-Filing if the presiding participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing officer subsequently determines that the the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern reason for granting the exemption from hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of use of E-Filing no longer exists. at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system Documents submitted in adjudicatory identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends proceedings will appear in the NRC’s allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice electronic hearing docket which is representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The available to the public at http:// documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the pursuant to an order of the Commission, participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRC’s Office of the or the presiding officer. Participants are Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who requested not to include personal submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary privacy information, such as social hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the security numbers, home addresses, or participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not home phone numbers in their filings, representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those unless an NRC regulation or other law issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore, requires submission of such this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or information. However, in some establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must instances, a request to intervene will hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID require including information on local Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/ residence in order to demonstrate a electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they proximity assertion of interest in the Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via proceeding. With respect to copyrighted digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system. works, except for limited excerpts that NRC’s public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using serve the purpose of the adjudicatory mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system filings and would constitute a Fair Use getting-started.html. System may seek assistance by contacting the application, participants are requested requirements for accessing the E- NRC Meta System Help Desk through not to include copyrighted materials in Submittal server are detailed in the the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the their submission. NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic NRC’s public Web site at http:// For further details with respect to Submission,’’ which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- these license amendment applications, agency’s public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to see the application for amendment www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- which is available for public inspection VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

24662 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For The proposed change does not create any proposed changes to the operating additional direction on accessing new failure modes for existing equipment or licenses, which are administrative in information related to this document, any new limiting single failures. nature, remove license conditions that Additionally, the proposed change does not see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and have been completed and are no longer involve a change in the methods governing Submitting Comments’’ section of this normal plant operation, and all safety in effect. The proposed change to the document. functions will continue to perform as TSs revise the ventilation filter testing previously assumed in the accident analyses. program by changing the value for NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Thus, the proposed change does not methyl iodide penetration for the Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point adversely affect the design function or control room emergency filtration Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, operation of any structures, systems, and system. Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc components important to safety. Basis for proposed no significant County, Wisconsin No new accident scenarios, failure hazards consideration determination: Date of amendment request: January mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 15, 2016. A publicly-available version is change. The proposed change does not licensee has provided its analysis of the in ADAMS under Accession No. challenge the performance or integrity of any issue of no significant hazards ML16015A112. safety-related system. consideration, which is presented Description of amendment request: Therefore, the proposed change does not below: The amendments would revise the create the possibility of a new or different 1. Does the proposed amendment involve technical specifications (TSs) for Point kind of accident from any previously a significant increase in the probability or Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The evaluated. consequences of an accident previously proposed change eliminates TS 3.7.14, 3. Does the proposed amendment involve evaluated? ‘‘Primary Auxiliary Building Ventilation a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Response: No. (VNPAB),’’ in its entirety on the basis The margin of safety associated with the The proposed amendment includes a that the VNPAB is not credited for change to delete license conditions that are acceptance criteria of any accident is accident mitigation and meets none of complete or otherwise obsolete. This change unchanged. The proposed change will have is strictly administrative in nature. The the criteria of 10 CFR 50.36 for no [effect] on the availability, operability, or proposed amendment also revises the inclusion in the TS. performance of safety-related systems and charcoal testing criteria in TS 5.5.10, Basis for proposed no significant components. The proposed change will not Ventilation Filter Testing Program. The hazards consideration determination: adversely affect the operation of plant proposed changes do not impact the physical As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the equipment or the function of equipment configuration or function of plant structures, licensee has provided its analysis of the assumed in the accident analysis. systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner The proposed amendment does not involve in which SSCs are operated, maintained, issue of no significant hazards changes to any safety analyses assumptions, consideration, which is presented modified, tested, or inspected. No actual safety limits, or limiting safety system facility equipment or accident analyses are below: settings. The changes do not adversely affected by the proposed changes. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve impact plant operating margins or the Therefore, the proposed changes do not a significant increase in the probability or reliability of equipment credited in the safety involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously analyses. probability or consequences of an accident evaluated? Therefore, the proposed change does not previously evaluated. Response: No. involve a significant reduction in a margin of 2. Does the proposed amendment create The proposed change does not impact the safety. the possibility of a new or different kind of physical configuration or function of plant The NRC staff has reviewed the accident from any accident previously structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or evaluated? licensee’s analysis and, based on this the manner in which SSCs are operated, Response: No. maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. review, it appears that the three The proposed changes do not involve a No actual facility equipment or accident standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are physical alteration of the plant (no new or analyses are affected by the proposed satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff different type of equipment will be installed). changes. proposes to determine that the The proposed changes do not create any new The control room dose analysis for a loss amendment request involves no failure modes for existing equipment or any of coolant accident using alternate source significant hazards consideration. new limiting single failures. Additionally, term (AST) initially credited operation of the Attorney for licensee: William Blair, the proposed changes do not involve a VNPAB exhaust system. However, the Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida change in the methods governing normal analysis was subsequently revised to remove Power & Light Company, P.O. Box plant operation, and all safety functions will credit for the VNPAB prior to NRC final continue to perform as previously assumed 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno approval of implementation of AST. As a in the accident analyses. Thus, the proposed result, NextEra is proposing to remove the Beach, FL 33408–0420. change does not adversely affect the design VNPAB system from the TS. The VNPAB NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. function or operation of any structures, system is not an initiator of accidents and NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, systems, and components important to safety. does not function to mitigate the Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point No new accident scenarios, failure consequences of DBAs [design-basis mechanisms, or limiting single failures are accidents]. Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, introduced as a result of the proposed Therefore, the proposed change does not Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc changes. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the County, Wisconsin challenge the performance or integrity of any probability or consequences of an accident Date of amendment request: February safety-related system. previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 12, 2016. A publicly-available version is 2. Does the proposed amendment create in ADAMS under Accession No. create the possibility of a new or different the possibility of a new or different kind of kind of accident from any previously accident from any accident previously ML16043A217. evaluated. evaluated? Description of amendment request: 3. Does the proposed amendment involve Response: No. The amendments would revise the a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The proposed change does not involve a facility operating licenses and the Response: No. physical alteration of the plant (no new or technical specifications (TSs) for Point The margin of safety associated with the different type of equipment will be installed). Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The acceptance criteria of any accident is VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices 24663 unchanged. The proposed changes will have such, the containment and the testing Response: No. no effect on the availability, operability, or requirements invoked to periodically The proposed TS change involves a performance of safety-related systems and demonstrate the integrity of the containment permanent extension of the Type A components. The proposed change will not exist to ensure the plant’s ability to mitigate containment test interval from 10 to 15 years. adversely affect the operation of plant the consequences of an accident, and do not The specific requirements and conditions of equipment or the function of equipment involve the prevention or identification of the Primary Containment Leak Rate Testing assumed in the accident analysis. any precursors of an accident. Program exist to ensure that the required The proposed amendment does not involve The effect of changing the Type A test degree of containment structural integrity changes to any safety analyses assumptions, frequency to once every 15 years, measured and leak-tightness considered in the plant safety limits, or limiting safety system as an increase to the total integrated plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall settings. The changes do not adversely risk (for accident sequences influenced by containment leak rate limit specified by TS impact plant operating margins or the Type A testing), is less than or equal to the is maintained. reliability of equipment credited in the safety criteria established in [Electric Power The proposed change involves only an analyses. Research Institute (EPRI)] Report No. extension of the interval between Type A test Therefore, the proposed change does not 1009325, Revision 2–A. Moreover, the risk performances for MNGP. Extension of the involve a significant reduction in a margin of impact for the ILRT extension when proposed surveillance interval is in safety. compared to other severe accident risks is accordance with the 15-year ILRT Interval negligible. In addition, as documented in determined acceptable by the NRC utilizing The NRC staff has reviewed the NUREG–1493, Type B and C tests have the guidance of [Nuclear Energy Institute licensee’s analysis and, based on this identified a very large percentage of (NEI)] 94–01, Revision 2–A. Industry review, it appears that the three containment leakage paths, and the experience supports the conclusion that Type standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are percentage of containment leakage paths that B and C testing detects a large percentage of satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff are detected only by Type A testing is very containment leakage paths and that the small. The MNGP Type A test history percentage of containment leakage paths that proposes to determine that the supports this conclusion. are detected only by Type A testing is small. amendment request involves no The integrity of the containment is subject The containment inspections performed in significant hazards consideration. to two types of failure mechanisms that can accordance with ASME Section XI, and the Attorney for licensee: William Blair, be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and, (2) TS serve to provide a high degree of Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida time based. Activity based failure assurance that the containment would not Power & Light Company, P. O. Box mechanisms are defined as those which degrade in a manner that is detectable only 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno involve degradation due to system and/or by Type A testing. The combination of these component modifications or maintenance. factors ensures that the margin of safety in Beach, FL 33408–0420. Local leak rate test requirements and NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. the plant safety analysis is maintained. The administrative controls such as configuration design, operation, testing methods and Northern States Power Company— management and procedural requirements for acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263, system restoration ensure that containment containment leakage tests specified in integrity is not degraded by plant applicable codes and standards continue to Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant modifications or maintenance activities. The (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota be met with the acceptance of this proposed design and construction requirements of the change because these criteria are not affected Date of amendment request: February containment combined with the containment by the proposed change to the Type A test 10, 2016. A publicly-available version is inspections performed in accordance with interval. American Society of Mechanical Engineers in ADAMS under Accession No. Therefore, the proposed change does not (ASME) [Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] ML16047A336. involve a significant reduction in a margin of Section XI, and TS requirements provide a Description of amendment request: safety. high degree of assurance that the The proposed amendment would revise containment would not degrade in a manner The NRC staff has reviewed the Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.11, that is detectable only by a Type A test. licensee’s analysis and, based on this ‘‘Primary Containment Leakage Rate Therefore, the proposed change does not review, it appears that the three Testing Program,’’ to increase the involve a significant increase in the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are containment integrated leakage rate test probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff program Test A interval from 10 to 15 proposes to determine that the 2. Does the proposed change create the years. possibility of a new or different kind of amendment request involves no Basis for proposed no significant accident from any accident previously significant hazards consideration. hazards consideration determination: evaluated? Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Response: No. Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed TS change involves a Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, issue of no significant hazards permanent extension of the Type A Minneapolis, MN 55401. consideration, which is presented containment test interval from 10 to 15 years. NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. below: The containment testing requirements which periodically demonstrate the integrity of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 1. Does the proposed change involve a containment exist to ensure the plant’s Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle significant increase in the probability or ability to mitigate the consequences of an Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units consequences of an accident previously accident. The proposed change does not evaluated? 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., Response: No. no new or different type of equipment will Date of amendment request: The proposed amendment involves a be installed) nor does the proposed change November 24, 2015. A publicly- permanent change to extend the Type A alter the design, configuration, or the manner available version is in ADAMS under containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) in which the plant is operated or controlled mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Accession No. ML15328A515. interval from 10 to 15 years. The proposed beyond the standard functional capabilities Description of amendment request: extension does not involve either a physical of the equipment. The amendment request proposes to change to the plant or a change in the manner Therefore, the proposed change does not in which the plant is operated or maintained. create the possibility of a new or different rename, relocate, and add radiation The containment is designed to provide an kind of accident from any previously detectors to provide monitoring of the essentially leak tight barrier against the evaluated. radiologically controlled area uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the 3. Does the proposed change involve a ventilation system (VAS) exhaust from environment for postulated accidents. As significant reduction in a margin of safety? the radiologically controlled areas of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

24664 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices auxiliary building and annex building. proposed changes do not change the design Acting NRC Branch Chief: John The amendment proposes changes in requirements for the system. The relocated McKirgan. the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis and new VAS radiation detectors are designed to the same equipment Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 information, and specifications, including required sensitivity Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424, 50–425, 52– departure from certified AP1000 Design and range, as the existing radiation detectors. 025, 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 The relocated and new VAS radiation Plant (VEGP), Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, Burke information. It also requires conforming detectors monitor the same parameters, as County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear changes to Combined License Appendix well as perform the same design functions, as Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket C, ‘‘Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and the existing radiation detectors. The proposed changes to the system do not result Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M. Acceptance Criteria.’’ Because this in a new failure mechanism or introduce any Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and proposed change requires a departure new accident precursors. No design function 2, Houston County, Alabama, Docket from Tier 1 information in the described in the UFSAR is adversely affected Nos. 50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 by the proposed changes. The proposed Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and DCD, the licensee also requested an changes do not result in a new failure mode, 2, City of Dalton, GA exemption from the requirements of the malfunction or sequence of events that could Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with affect safety or safety-related equipment. The Date of amendment request: March 3, 52.63(b)(1). proposed changes do not allow for a new 2016. A publicly-available version is in Basis for proposed no significant fission product release path, result in a new ADAMS under Accession No. hazards consideration determination: fission product barrier failure mode, or create ML16071A110. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the a new sequence of events that would result Description of amendment request: licensee has provided its analysis of the in significant fuel cladding failures. The amendment requests NRC approval issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the proposed amendment does for the adoption of Nuclear Energy not create the possibility of a new or different consideration, which is presented Institute (NEI) 99–01, Revision 6, kind of accident from any accident below: previously evaluated. ‘‘Development of Emergency Action 1. Does the proposed amendment involve 3. Does the proposed amendment involve Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ to a significant increase in the probability or a significant reduction in a margin of safety? replace the Emergency Action Level consequences of an accident previously Response: No. (EAL) schemes for VEGP, FNP, and HNP evaluated? The proposed changes do not change the that are currently based on Revision 4 Response: No. codes or standards for the radiation detectors, of NEI 99–01. Additionally, SNC The design functions of the VAS include or functionality of the ductwork in the proposes changes to the radiation prevention of the unmonitored release of auxiliary building and annex building. The monitors at FNP. airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or proposed changes have no adverse effect on adjacent plant areas by providing monitoring Basis for proposed no significant the nonsafety-related system design functions of the VAS exhaust from radiologically of the VAS for the prevention of the hazards consideration determination: controlled areas of the auxiliary building and unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the annex building, and to automatically isolate to the atmosphere or adjacent plant areas by licensee has provided its analysis of the the selected building areas and start the providing monitoring of the VAS exhaust issue of no significant hazards containment air filtration system (VFS) upon from radiologically controlled areas of the consideration, which is presented detection of high radioactivity. The proposed auxiliary building and annex building, and to below: changes to the VAS to relocate and add automatically isolate the selected building radiation detectors are acceptable as they areas and start the VFS upon detection of 1. Does the proposed amendment involve maintain these design functions. high radioactivity. The proposed changes do a significant increase in the probability or These proposed changes to the VAS design not affect safety-related equipment or consequences of an accident previously as described in the current licensing basis do equipment whose failure could initiate an evaluated? not have an adverse effect on any of the accident. The proposed changes to relocate Response: No. design functions of the systems. The and add radiation detectors do not adversely Adoption of NEI 99–01, Revision 6 EAL proposed changes do not affect the support, interface with safety-related equipment or Schemes—The proposed changes to SNC’s design, or operation of mechanical and fluid fission product barriers. Therefore, the EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed systems required to mitigate the proposed changes do not affect any safety- guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6, consequences of an accident. There is no related equipment, design code, function, ‘‘Development of Emergency Action Levels change to plant systems or the response of design analysis, safety analysis input or for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ do not reduce the systems to postulated accident conditions. result, or design/safety margin. No safety capability to meet the emergency planning There is no change to the predicted analysis or design basis acceptance limit/ requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 radioactive releases due to postulated criterion is challenged or exceeded by the and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed accident conditions. The plant response to requested changes, thus, no margin of safety changes do not reduce the functionality, previously evaluated accidents or external is reduced. performance, or capability of SNC’s events is not adversely affected, nor do the Therefore, the proposed amendment does [emergency response organization (ERO)] to proposed changes described create any new not involve a significant reduction in a respond in mitigating the consequences of accident precursors. margin of safety. any design basis accident. Therefore, the proposed amendment does The probability of a reactor accident not involve a significant increase in the The NRC staff has reviewed the requiring implementation of Emergency Plan probability or consequences of an accident licensee’s analysis and, based on this EALs has no relevance in determining previously evaluated. review, it appears that the three whether the proposed changes to the EALs 2. Does the proposed amendment create standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are reduce the effectiveness of the Emergency the possibility of a new or different kind of Plans. As discussed in Section D, ‘‘Planning mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident from any accident previously Basis,’’ of NUREG–0654, Revision 1, ‘‘Criteria proposes to determine that the for Preparation and Evaluation of evaluated? amendment request involves no Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Response: No. The proposed changes revise the VAS significant hazards consideration. Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power design as described in the current licensing Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Plants:’’ basis to enable the system to perform Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 ‘‘. . . The overall objective of emergency required design functions, and are consistent Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL response plans is to provide dose savings with other UFSAR information. The 35203–2015. (and in some cases immediate life saving) for VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices 24665 a spectrum of accidents * * * No single guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not proposed change does not involve a change specific accident sequence should be isolated involve any physical changes to plant in the method of plant operation, and no as the one for which to plan because each systems or equipment. The proposed changes accident analyses will be affected by the accident could have different consequences, do not involve the addition of any new plant proposed change. both in nature and degree. Further, the range equipment. The proposed changes will not Additionally, the proposed change will not of possible selection for a planning basis is alter the design configuration, or method of relax any criteria used to establish safety very large, starting with a zero point of operation of plant equipment beyond its limits and will not relax any safety system requiring no planning at all because normal functional capabilities. All SNC ERO settings. The safety analysis acceptance significant offsite radiological accident functions will continue to be performed as criteria are not affected by this change. The consequences are unlikely to occur, to required. The proposed changes do not create proposed change will not result in plant planning for the worst possible accident, any new credible failure mechanisms, operation in a configuration outside the regardless of its extremely low likelihood malfunctions, or accident initiators. design basis. The proposed change does not * * *. .’’ Therefore, the proposed changes to the adversely affect systems that respond to Therefore, SNC did not consider the risk EAL schemes do not create the possibility of safely shutdown the plant and to maintain insights regarding any specific accident a new or different kind of accident from the plant in a safe shutdown condition. initiation or progression in evaluating the those that have been previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change to the proposed changes. [FNP] RE–60 Radiation Monitors—The Farley EALs resulting from the proposed The proposed changes do not involve any proposed change to the [FNP] EALs resulting modification of the RE–60 radiation monitors physical changes to plant equipment or from the proposed modification of the RE–60 does not involve a significant reduction in a systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of radiation monitors does not impact the [FNP] margin of safety. any accident analyses. The proposed changes accident analysis. The change does not do not adversely affect accident initiators or involve a physical alteration of safety-related The NRC staff has reviewed the precursors nor do they alter the design SSCs (i.e., no new or different type of safety- licensee’s analysis and, based on this assumptions, conditions, and configuration related SSC will be installed), a change in the review, it appears that the three or the manner in which the plants are method of plant operation, or new operator standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are operated and maintained. The proposed actions. The proposed change will not satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff changes do not adversely affect the ability of introduce failure modes that could result in proposes to determine that the Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs) a new accident, and the change does not alter amendment request involves no to perform their intended safety functions in assumptions made in the safety analysis. The mitigating the consequences of an initiating proposed change revises EALs, which significant hazards consideration. event within the assumed acceptance limits. establish the thresholds for placing the plant Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, Therefore, the proposed changes to the in an emergency classification. EALs are not SVP & General Counsel of Operations EAL schemes do not involve a significant initiators of any accidents. and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear increase in the probability or consequences Therefore, the proposed change to the Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center of an accident previously evaluated. [FNP] EALs resulting from the proposed Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. [FNP] RE–60 Radiation Monitors—The modification of the RE–60 radiation monitors NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. proposed changes to the [FNP] EALs does not create the possibility of a new or Markley. resulting from the proposed modification of different kind of accident from any accident the RE–60 radiation monitors do not impact previously evaluated. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments the physical function of SSCs or the manner 3. Does the proposed changes involve a to Facility Operating Licenses and in which SSCs perform their design function. significant reduction in a margin of safety? Combined Licenses The proposed change does not adversely Response: No. affect accident initiators or precursors, nor Adoption of NEI 99–01, Revision 6 EAL During the period since publication of alter design assumptions. Schemes—The proposed changes to SNC’s the last biweekly notice, the While the proposed change will alter the EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed Commission has issued the following design configuration of the plant by replacing guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not amendments. The Commission has and relocating radiation monitors RE–60–A, alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. determined for each of these B and C and by abandoning RE–60D, the There is no change being made to safety amendments that the application proposed change does not alter or prevent the analysis assumptions, safety limits, or complies with the standards and ability of operable SSCs to perform their limiting safety system settings that would requirements of the Atomic Energy Act intended function to mitigate the adversely affect plant safety as a result of the consequences of an initiating event within proposed changes. There are no changes to of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the assumed acceptance limits. Similarly, while setpoints or environmental conditions of any Commission’s rules and regulations. these instruments monitor and provide SSC or the manner in which any SSC is The Commission has made appropriate information on the consequences of an operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by findings as required by the Act and the accident, the radiation monitors perform no the proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99– Commission’s rules and regulations in safety function that directly mitigates the 01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in consequences of an accident. Further, no applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and the license amendment. operating procedures or administrative 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be A notice of consideration of issuance controls that function to prevent or mitigate met. of amendment to facility operating accidents are affected by the proposed Therefore, the proposed changes to SNC’s change. EAL schemes do not involve any reduction license or combined license, as Therefore, the proposed change to the in a margin of safety. applicable, proposed no significant [FNP] EALs resulting from the proposed [FNP] RE–60 Radiation Monitors—Margin hazards consideration determination, modification of the RE–60 radiation monitors of safety is associated with confidence in the and opportunity for a hearing in does not involve a significant increase in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., connection with these actions, was probability or consequences of an accident fuel cladding, reactor coolant system published in the Federal Register as previously evaluated. pressure boundary, and containment mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES indicated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create structure) to limit the level of radiation dose Unless otherwise indicated, the the possibility of a new or different kind of to the public. The proposed change to the Commission has determined that these accident from any accident previously [FNP] EALs resulting from the proposed evaluated? modification of the RE–60 radiation monitors amendments satisfy the criteria for Response: No. does not impact operation of the plant or its categorical exclusion in accordance Adoption of NEI 99–01, Revision 6 EAL response to transients or accidents. The with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Schemes—The proposed changes to SNC’s change does not affect the Technical to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed Specifications or the Operating License. The impact statement or environmental VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

24666 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices assessment need be prepared for these DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– Florida Power & Light Company, Docket amendments. If the Commission has 341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point prepared an environmental assessment Date of amendment request: Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, under the special circumstances September 24, 2015. Miami-Dade County, Florida provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has Brief description of amendment: The Date of amendment request: July 2, made a determination based on that amendment deleted the note associated 2015, as supplemented by letter dated assessment, it is so indicated. with Surveillance Requirement (SR) November 17, 2015. For further details with respect to the 3.5.1.4 to reflect the Residual Heat Brief description of amendments: The action see (1) the applications for Removal (RHR) system design and amendments revised the Technical amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) ensure the RHR system operation is Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/ the Commission’s related letter, Safety consistent with TS 3.5.1 Limiting 4.9.5, ‘‘Communications,’’ and TS 3/ Evaluation and/or Environmental Condition for Operation requirements. 4.9.6, ‘‘Manipulator Crane.’’ The Assessment as indicated. All of these Date of issuance: April 5, 2016. amendments require the licensee to items can be accessed as described in Effective date: As of the date of relocate the requirements to the the ‘‘Obtaining Information and issuance and shall be implemented Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Submitting Comments’’ section of this within 60 days of issuance. and related procedures to be controlled document. Amendment No.: 203. A publicly- in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., available version is in ADAMS under ‘‘Changes, tests, and experiments.’’ Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power Accession No. ML16054A637; Date of issuance: March 29, 2016. Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New documents related to this amendment Effective date: As of the date of London County, Connecticut are listed in the Safety Evaluation issuance and shall be implemented enclosed with the amendment. within 60 days of issuance. Date of amendment request: March 2, Facility Operating License No. NPF– Amendment Nos: 269 (Unit No. 3) 2015, as supplemented by letter dated 43: This amendment revises the Facility and 264 (Unit No. 4). A publicly- August 31, 2015. Operating License and Technical available version is in ADAMS under Brief description of amendment: The Specifications. Accession No. ML16040A373; amendment revised the technical Date of initial notice in Federal documents related to these amendments specifications (TSs) by (1) aligning the Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR are listed in the Safety Evaluation peak calculated primary containment 73235). enclosed with the amendments. internal pressure (Pa) for the design The Commission’s related evaluation Renewed Facility Operating License basis loss of coolant accident in TS 6.19 of the amendment is contained in a Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments to be consistent with the 10 CFR 50 Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2016. revised the Renewed Facility Operating Appendix, J, Option B definition of Pa, No significant hazards consideration Licenses and TSs. and (2) revising the acceptable methods comments received: No. Date of initial notice in Federal of surveillance for leakage rate testing of Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR the containment air lock door seals. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 65813). The supplemental letter dated Date of issuance: March 31, 2016. Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick November 17, 2015, provided additional Effective date: As of the date of Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, information that clarified the issuance and shall be implemented New York application, did not expand the scope of within 60 days from the date of Date of amendment request: June 22, the application as originally noticed, issuance. 2015. and did not change the staff’s original Amendment No.: 326. A publicly- Brief description of amendment: The proposed no significant hazards available version is in ADAMS under amendment revised the James A. consideration determination as Accession No. ML16068A312; FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Cyber published in the Federal Register. documents related to this amendment Security Plan Implementation Schedule The Commission’s related evaluation are listed in the Safety Evaluation Milestone 8 full implementation date of the amendments is contained in a enclosed with the amendment. from June 30, 2016, to December 15, Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2016. Renewed Facility Operating License 2017. No significant hazards consideration No. DPR–65: Amendment revised the Date of issuance: April 6, 2016. comments received: No. Renewed Operating License and TSs. Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal issuance, and shall be implemented Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43126). within 30 days of issuance. Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. Lucie Plant The supplemental letter dated August Amendment No.: 311. A publicly- Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, 31, 2015, provided additional available version is in ADAMS under Florida information that expanded the scope of Accession No. ML16062A388; Date of amendment requests: March the application as originally noticed. A documents related to this amendment 22, 2013, as supplemented by letters notice published in the Federal Register are listed in the Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2013; February 24, March on February 22, 2016 (81 FR 8752), enclosed with the amendment. 25, April 25, July 14, August 27, superseded the original notice in its Renewed Facility Operating License September 10, and October 10, 2014; entirety to reflect the expanded scope of No. DPR–59: The amendment revised and March 10, April 1, April 20, May the proposed amendment and include mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the Renewed Facility Operating License. 12, August 21, and October 22, 2015. the staff’s proposed no significant Date of initial notice in Federal Brief description of amendments: The hazards consideration determination. Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46349). amendments transition the fire The Commission’s related evaluation The Commission’s related evaluation protection program to a new risk- of the amendment is contained in a of the amendment is contained in a informed, performance-based alternative Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2016. Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2016. in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration which incorporates by reference the comments received: No. comments received: No. National Fire Protection Association VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Notices 24667 (NFPA) Standard 805 (NFPA 805), systems for 15 continuous minutes at a Date of initial notice in Federal ‘‘Performance-Based Standard for Fire monthly frequency. Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38776). Protection for Light Water Reactor Date of issuance: April 5, 2016. The supplemental letter dated February Electric Generating Plants,’’ 2001 Effective date: As of the date of 3, 2016, provided additional Edition. Copies of NFPA 805 may be issuance and shall be implemented information that clarified the purchased from the NFPA Customer within 90 days from the date of application, did not expand the scope of Service Department, 1 Batterymarch issuance. the application as originally noticed, Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, Amendment No.: 287. A publicly- and did not change the staff’s original Massachusetts 02269–9101 and in PDF available version is in ADAMS under proposed no significant hazards format through the NFPA Online Accession No. ML16084A755; consideration determination as Catalog (http://www.nfpa.org) or by documents related to this amendment published in the Federal Register. calling 1–800–344–3555 or 617–770– are listed in the Safety Evaluation 3000. Copies are also available for enclosed with the amendment. The Commission’s related evaluation inspection at the NRC Library, Two Renewed Facility Operating License of the amendments is contained in a White Flint North, 11545 Rockville No. DPR–40: The amendment revised Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2016. Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852–2738, the License and Technical No significant hazards consideration and at the NRC PDR, One White Flint Specifications. comments received: No. North, Room O1–F15, 11555 Rockville Date of initial notice in Federal Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852–2738. Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR of April 2016. Date of issuance: March 31, 2016. 61485). Effective date: As of the date of For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission’s related evaluation issuance and shall be implemented as of the amendment is contained in a Anne T. Boland, described in the transition license Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2016. Director, Division of Operating Reactor conditions. No significant hazards consideration Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Amendment Nos.: 231 and 181. A comments received: No. Regulation. publicly-available version is in ADAMS [FR Doc. 2016–09543 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] under Accession No. ML15344A346; PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation 50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear enclosed with the amendments. Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Renewed Facility Operating License POSTAL SERVICE Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments Date of amendment request: March revised the Renewed Facility Operating 27, 2015, as supplemented by letter Product Change—Priority Mail Licenses and Technical Specifications. dated February 3, 2016. Negotiated Service Agreement Date of initial notice in Federal Brief description of amendments: The Register: December 26, 2013 (78 FR amendments revised certain Technical AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 78407). The supplemental letters dated Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip February 24, March 25, April 25, July System Instrumentation,’’ actions. ACTION: Notice. 14, August 27, September 10, and Specifically, TS Table 3.3–1, Action 2, October 10, 2014; and March 10, April is revised to allow one power range (PR) SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 1, April 20, May 12, August 21, and channel to be bypassed for up to 4 hours notice of filing a request with the Postal October 22, 2015, provided additional for surveillance testing, and two new Regulatory Commission to add a information that clarified the action notes are established for the PR domestic shipping services contract to application, did not expand the scope of nuclear instrumentation in TS Table the list of Negotiated Service the application as originally noticed, 4.3–1. The changes support the Agreements in the Mail Classification and did not change the staff’s original installation and use of bypass test Schedule’s Competitive Products List. proposed no significant hazards capability for the PR nuclear DATES: Effective date: April 26, 2016. consideration determination as instrumentation. published in the Federal Register. Date of issuance: March 28, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Commission’s related evaluation Effective date: As of the date of Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179. of the amendment is contained in a issuance and shall be implemented at Salem, Unit No. 1, prior to returning to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2016. the MODE of applicability following United States Postal Service® hereby No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. refueling outage 1R24, and at Salem, gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. Unit No. 2, prior to returning to the 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 20, 2016, Omaha Public Power District, Docket MODE of applicability following it filed with the Postal Regulatory No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit refueling outage 2R22. Commission a Request of the United No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Amendment Nos.: 312 (Unit No. 1) States Postal Service to Add Priority Date of amendment request: July 24, and 293 (Unit No. 2). A publicly- Mail Contract 208 to Competitive 2015. available version is in ADAMS under Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2016–123, mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Brief description of amendment: The Accession No. ML16054A068; amendment revised the Technical documents related to these amendments CP2016–156. Specification (TS) Surveillance are listed in the Safety Evaluation Stanley F. Mires, Requirements (SRs), which currently enclosed with the amendments. require operation of ventilation systems Renewed Facility Operating License Attorney, Federal Compliance. with charcoal filters for a 10-hour Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75: Amendments [FR Doc. 2016–09621 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] period at a monthly frequency. The SRs revised the Renewed Facility Operating BILLING CODE 7710–12–P are revised to require operation of the Licenses and TSs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1


Document Created: 2016-04-26 01:36:28
Document Modified: 2016-04-26 01:36:28
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionBiweekly notice.
DatesComments must be filed by May 26, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 27, 2016.
ContactJanet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected]
FR Citation81 FR 24659 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR