81 FR 257 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 2 (January 5, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 2 (January 5, 2016)
| Page Range | 257-272 | |
| FR Document | 2015-33260 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 257-272] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-33260] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0288] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from December 8, 2015, to December 21, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on December 22, 2015. DATES: Comments must be filed by February 4, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed March 7, 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-2015-0288. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0288 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods: Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0288. 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-2015-0288, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov, as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day [[Page 258]] 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 March 7, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by March 7, 2016. [[Page 259]] 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 as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, [[Page 260]] see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan Date of amendment request: September 24, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15268A149. Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify technical specification requirements to address Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' as described in TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.'' Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the RCIC System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the RCIC System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226. NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina Date of amendment request: October 29, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15302A542. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise several HNP, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow the `A' Emergency Service Water (ESW) pump to be inoperable for 14 days to allow for the replacement of the `A' Train ESW pump. The proposed license amendment request (LAR) would be applicable on a one-time basis. 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? The `B' Train ESW supply and supported equipment will remain fully operable during the 14 day completion time. The `A' ESW pump and supported equipment function as accident mitigators. Removing the `A' Train ESW pump from service for a limited period of time does not affect any accident initiator and therefore cannot change the probability of an accident. The proposed changes and the `A' Train ESW pump replacement activity have been evaluated to assess their impact on the systems affected and upon the design basis safety functions. The activities covered by this LAR also include defense-in-depth actions. Weather patterns will be monitored and this activity schedule will be adjusted if tornado/high wind conditions become imminent. In addition, completing the lineups required by the operations work procedure (OWP) for the Service Water (SW) system, OWP-SW, ``Service Water,'' which is necessary when an ESW pump is inoperable, provides defense in depth for prevention of core damage and containment failure. The lineup steps for time periods when the `A' ESW pump is inoperable include the lifting of leads to disable the Safety Injection (SI) close signal to service water valve `1SW- 39' and service water valve `SW-276.' This allows the breakers to be maintained on and allows expeditious isolation capability in the event of a SW leak in the Reactor Auxiliary Building. This lineup also defeats the SI signal to service water valve `SW-276' to maintain it open. As long as service water valves `1SW-274' and `1SW-40' are operable, the `B' Train ESW header is isolable, and operable. The simplified flow diagrams provided in Attachment 5 (enclosed in original document) illustrate the flow paths affected by the valves discussed above. Quantitative measures and qualitative measures will be taken during the planned ESW pump replacement, which are identified in Attachment 7 (enclosed in original document) as Regulatory Commitments. There will be no effect on the analysis of any accident or the progression of the accident since the operable ESW `B' train is capable of serving 100 percent of all the required heat loads. As such, there is no impact on consequence mitigation for any transient or accident. 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 [[Page 261]] accident from any accident previously evaluated? The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the required completion times from 72 hours for the Charging Pumps, Emergency Core Cooling Systems Subsystems, Containment Spray System, Spray Additive System, Containment Cooling System, Auxiliary Feedwater System, Component Cooling Water System, ESW System, Essential Services Chilled Water System, and AC [Alternating Current] Sources systems to 336 hours. Additionally, proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the required completion times from 7 days for the Control Room Emergency Filtration System and the Reactor Auxiliary Building Emergency Exhaust Systems to 336 hours. The requested change does not involve the addition or removal of any plant system, structure, or component. The proposed temporary TS changes do not affect the basic design, operation, or function of any of the systems associated with the TS impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from that previously evaluated. HNP intends to isolate and replace the `A' ESW pump. During the period in which the `A' Train ESW pump is not available, the (NSW System will remain available to supply the `A' Train ESW loads and the `B' Train ESW Train will be operable. Throughout the pump replacement project, compensatory measures will be in place to provide additional assurance that the affected systems will continue to be capable of performing their intended safety functions. In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant, and containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR. Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change in the operation of the plant. The activity only extends the amount of time the `A' Train ESW system is allowed to be inoperable for the replacement of the `A' ESW pump to improve design margin. The estimated incremental conditional core damage probability (ICCDP) during the 14 day completion time extension is much less than the limits presented in Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Date of amendment request: November 5, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15310A064. Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the Calvert Cliffs Technical Specifications (TSs) to relocate certain Surveillance Requirements Frequencies to the previously approved Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets]: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies for periodic Surveillance Requirements [SRs] to licensee control under the SFCP. Surveillance Frequencies (SF) are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the TS for which the SF are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the SR, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies for periodic SR to licensee control under the SFCP. No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the change does not impose any new or different requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies for periodic SR to licensee control under the SFCP. The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components, specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS), since these are not affected by [relocating] the SF[s]. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. 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 amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: March 26, 2015. This Notice is regarding the application dated May 12, 2015, which superseded the application dated March 26, 2015, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15089A231 and ML15089A233. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15134A232. Description of amendment request: The NRC staff has previously made a proposed determination that the amendment request dated March 26, 2015, involves no significant hazards [[Page 262]] consideration (80 FR 58518; September 29, 2015). Subsequently, by application dated May 12, 2015, the licensee superseded the March 26, 2015, amendment request in its entirety. Accordingly, this Notice of the May 12, 2015, application supersedes the previous Notice in its entirety. This amendment request involves the adoption of approved changes to NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications [STS] General Electric BWR/4 Plants,'' Revision 4.0, to allow relocation of specific Technical Specifications (TS) surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The proposed changes are described in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 425 ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3 (TSTF-425) ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642, and are described in the Notice of Availability published in the FR on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-425. The proposed changes relocate surveillance frequencies to a licensee- controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). The changes are applicable to licensees using probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) 04- 10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk- Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the LAR changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: October 8, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15281A028. Description of amendment request: The amendments would allow the proposed changes to Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 (NMP1) and Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 (NMP2) TSs to provide an allowance for brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment personnel access doors during normal entry and exit conditions. Specifically, NMP1 Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.3 and Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.4.3 are modified to acknowledge that secondary containment access openings may be open for entry and exit. Further, the definition for Reactor Building Integrity, specified in NMP1 TS Definition 1.12, is revised for consistency to reflect the changes proposed to TS Section 3.4.3 LCO and SR 4.4.3. The NMP2 SR 3.6.4.1.3 is modified to acknowledge that secondary containment access openings may be open for entry and exit. 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes address temporary conditions during which the secondary containment SRs are not met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated while using the proposed changes are not impacted and are bounded by the existing design bases calculations and analyses. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. [[Page 263]] 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes would provide an allowance for brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment personnel access doors during normal entry and exit conditions. The allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment access door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of secondary containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening and closing of redundant secondary containment personnel access doors during entry and exit conditions does not affect the ability of the Emergency Ventilation System (NMP1) or the Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System (NMP2) to establish the required secondary containment vacuum. Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: December 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15349A800. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would reduce the reactor steam dome pressure stated in the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. The proposed change addresses a 10 CFR part 21 issue concerning the potential to violate the safety limits during a pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open) (PRFO) transient. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the reactor steam dome pressure in Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed change is in accordance with an NRC approved critical power correlation methodology, and as such, maintains required safety margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Lowering the value of reactor steam dome pressure in the TS has no physical effect on plant equipment and therefore, no impact on the course of plant transients. The change is an analytical exercise to demonstrate the applicability of correlations and methodologies. There are no known operational or safety benefits. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit from 785 psig [pounds per square inch gauge] to 685 psig is a change based upon previously approved documents and does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not introduce any new accident precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. Also, the change does not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition by General Electric determined that since the Minimum Critical Power Ratio improves during the PRFO transient, there is no decrease in the safety margin and therefore there is no threat to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed change in reactor steam dome pressure supports the current safety margin, which protects the fuel cladding integrity during a depressurization transient, but does not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment, which remains unchanged. The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 is consistent with and within the capabilities of the applicable NRC approved critical power correlation for the fuel designs in use at PBAPS Units 2 and 3. No setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus, previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed change. Therefore, the proposed 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated November 5, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15254A387 and ML15309A750, respectively. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the technical specifications to support planned plant modifications to implement chiller replacements and for performing maintenance on common line components. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: [[Page 264]] 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The Auxiliary Building Chilled Water (AB CH) system will continue to meet the design cooling requirements for both normal and accident conditions. The Two chiller and Cross Tied configuration analyses verify the capability of the system to perform its design function. The configuration analyses were performed assuming that one of the required chillers is out of service for the supplying unit to account for a possible failure of a chiller, demonstrating that only the remaining required chillers are required to be operating for normal operation and accident conditions. This supports operating with the required chillers available and the potential loss of a chiller during an accident as the single failure, or the unexpected loss of a chiller during normal operation. The AB CH system is not an initiator or precursor to any anticipated (or abnormal) operational transients or postulated design basis accidents. Operating with only two chillers required does not alter the design requirements of the system; the required cooling capability is still met. The AB CH systems for Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 are designed to allow the systems to be cross-tied; allowing for the pumps and chillers of one Unit to cool the heat loads of both Units. In cross-tie configuration the analyses demonstrate the system will continue to provide required cooling capability to the control room and safety related areas during normal operation and in the event of an accident. Therefore there is no increase in the probability of any previously evaluated accident. Two Chiller or Cross-Tied operation has no effect on the consequences of any previously analyzed accident. Evaluations were performed assuming that one of the required chillers is out of service to account for a possible failure of a chiller. The two chiller analyses determined that certain heat loads are required to be isolated, certain environmental conditions are required, and that single filtration alignment of the CREACS [Control Room Emergency Air Conditioning System] must be restricted. The cross-tied analyses determined that certain heat loads are required to be isolated, certain environmental conditions are required, and both trains of the CREACS must be in service. The proposed TS changes incorporate these restrictions ensuring the design requirements of the system will continue to be met. The temperatures of the Control Area Rooms continue to be below the acceptance criteria during AB CH system Two Chiller and Cross-Tied operations for both normal operation and accident conditions. Therefore this proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to the TS permitting AB CH system Two Chiller and Cross-Tied operation do not introduce any new accident initiators or create any new failure mechanisms or malfunctions. The analyses demonstrate the system continues to perform its design functions for both normal and accident conditions. To ensure the system has adequate cooling capability, restrictions are placed in TS isolating non-safety related loads, verifying certain environmental conditions, and restricting single filtration train alignment operation. These restrictions do not cause the system to be operated outside its design basis and therefore do not create any new failure mechanisms. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment does not alter setpoints or limits established or assumed by any accident analyses. The proposed change does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit (i.e., Control Room Area temperatures remain below design requirements), therefore it does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. In Two Chiller and Cross-Tied configuration, restrictions are placed in the TS ensuring the AB CH system will continue to provide adequate cooling during normal and accident conditions. The Control Room area ambient air temperature will not exceed the allowable temperature for continuous duty rating for the equipment and instrumentation and the control room will remain habitable for operations personnel during and following all credible accident conditions. The sharing of the AB CH system between Units in the Cross-Tied configuration does not impair its ability to perform its safety function for both normal and accident conditions. Design cooling requirements for the accident condition unit continue to be met, and the operating unit cooling requirements are also met such that there can be an orderly shutdown and cool down. Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: October 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15285A014. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.2.3, ``Containment Cooling System,'' to correct a discrepancy between TS mode applicability and the shutdown mode in the associated action statements. The request also proposes changes to the Unit Nos. 1 and 2, TS 3.7.1.1, ``Safety Valves,'' to correct discrepancies between TS mode applicability and action statement shutdown modes. 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. Neither the Containment Fan Cooling Units (CFCUs) nor the MSSVs [main steam line code safety valves] are accident initiators. These proposed changes will not increase the probability of occurrence of any design basis accident since the corrections to the affected Technical Specifications, in and of themselves, cannot initiate an accident. Should a previously evaluated accident occur, the proposed changes will ensure that the plant equipment is operable in all required applicable modes of operation and that the Technical Specification action statements are consistent with those applicable modes. There will be no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in accidents previously evaluated. No design functions of structures, systems and components required to mitigate the consequences of an accident are affected. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment does not involve physical changes (installing new equipment or modifying existing equipment) related to the design functions or operations of the CFCUs or MSSVs. In addition, the proposed changes to the affected Technical [[Page 265]] Specification applicability modes and action statement modes will not create the potential for any new initiating events or transients to occur in the physical plant. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes, which correct a non-conservative TS and eliminate an inconsistency between applicability mode and action statement, do not exceed or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety limit. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: September 30, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15273A115. Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved, would depart from certain plant-specific Tier 1 information by adding two turbine building sump pumps to accommodate the increased flow that will be experienced during condensate polishing system rinsing operations. The proposed change also indicates that there is more than one main turbine building sump. Because flow into the turbine building sumps may be radiologically contaminated, the turbine building sump pumps will cease operation if a high radiation signal is present. The proposed changes to Tier 1 would have corresponding changes to the Combined License (COL) Appendix C, however there are no associated Tier 2 changes required. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps (WWS-MP-07A and B) to [combined license] COL Appendix C, Section 2.3.29, and corresponding Table 2.3.29-1 will provide consistency within the current licensing basis. The main turbine building sumps and sump pumps are not safety-related components and do not interface with any systems, structures, or components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events; thus, the probability of accidents evaluated within the plant-specific [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to accident conditions, thus the consequences of accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine sump pumps to the non- safety waste water system (WWS) do not affect any safety-related equipment, nor does it add any new interface to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by this change. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The WWS is a non-safety-related system that does not interface with any safety-related equipment. The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps do not affect any 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 proposed change. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50- 296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units (BFN) 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: September 16, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15260B125). Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Units 1 and 2, by adding a new Specification (i.e., TS 3.3.8.3) to consolidate the requirements governing the safety functions for the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Preferred Pump Logic, Common Accident Signal (CAS) Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic and for Unit 3, by adding a new Specification (i.e., TS 3.3.8.3) to consolidate the requirements governing the safety functions for the CAS Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic for consistency with the changes to the, Units 1 and 2 TSs. The proposed change would relocate the existing requirements for the CAS Logic from Units 1, 2, and 3, TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-- Operating,'' to the proposed TS 3.3.8.3. In addition, TS 3.3.5.1, Table 3.3.5.1-1, ``Emergency Core Cooling System Instrumentation,'' would be revised to incorporate references to the proposed TS 3.3.8.3. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 continues to provide LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation], Required Actions and Completion Times, and Surveillance Requirements for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. A TVA risk assessment has determined that the risk of changing the Completion Time for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic from 24 hours to seven days, and maintaining the current [[Page 266]] Surveillance Test Intervals as the current Surveillance Test Interval for the rest of the ECCS Instrumentation in the technical specifications is acceptable. Because the proposed changes do not require modification of the plant or change the way the logic systems are used, the proposed changes do not affect the current LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] analysis of record. Based on the above discussions, the proposed changes do not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 continues to provide LCO, Required Actions and Completion Times, and Surveillance Requirements for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. The proposed changes result in no physical change to the plant configuration or method of operation. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 continues to provide LCO, Required Actions and Completion Times, and Surveillance Requirements for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. A TVA risk assessment has determined that the risk of changing the Completion Time for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic from 24 hours to seven days, and maintaining the current Surveillance Test Intervals as the current Surveillance Test Interval for the rest of the ECCS Instrumentation in the technical specifications is acceptable. Accordingly, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. III. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration. For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Date of amendment request: December 30, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated May 8, and July 30, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14364A100, ML15128A305, and ML15215A336, respectively. Brief description of amendment request: The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), for operation of DNPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed amendment uses a new Criticality Safety Analysis (CSA) methodology for performing the criticality safety evaluation for legacy fuel types in addition to the new ATRIUM 10XM fuel design in the DNPS spent fuel pools. In addition, the licensee's amendment request proposes a change to the DNPS Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Criticality,'' in support of the new CSA. Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68573). Expiration date of individual notice: December 7, 2015 (public comments); January 5, 2015 (hearing requests). IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Duke Energy Florida, Inc. and Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date of application for amendment: May 7, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and 5.6.2.3 by changing the title of the position with overall responsibility for the safe handling and storage of nuclear fuel and licensee initiated changes to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual from either the Plant Manager or the Decommissioning Director to the General Manager Decommissioning. [[Page 267]] Date of issuance: November 27, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15261A452; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43127). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Date of application for amendment: December 15, 2014 as supplemented by letters dated May 6, October 12, November 6, and November 24, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.3.1 of TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SBT) System''; SR 3.7.3.1 of TS 3.7.3 ``Control Room Fresh Air (CRFA) System''; and TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).'' The changes to SRs 3.6.4.3.1 and 3.7.3.1 are consistent with the adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS) Traveler TSTF-522, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month.'' Additionally, the change to TS 5.5.7 provided consistency with the above TS changes that was not addressed in TSTF-522. Date of issuance: December 17, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment No: 208. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15336A256; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23603). The supplemental letters dated May 6, October 12, November 6, and November 24, 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 December 17, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY), Vernon, Vermont Date of amendment request: June 12, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated October 21, 2014; February 5, 2015; June 18, 2015; and July 16, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the permanently defueled emergency plan and emergency action level (EAL) scheme to reflect the reduced scope of offsite and onsite emergency planning and the significantly reduced spectrum of credible accidents that can occur for the permanently defueled condition. Date of issuance: December 11, 2015. Effective date: As of April 15, 2016, and shall be implemented within 90 days of the amendment effective date. Amendment No.: 264. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15233A166; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the VY permanently defueled emergency plan and EAL scheme. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 9, 2014 (79 FR 73109). The supplemental letters dated October 21, 2014; February 5, 2015; June 18, 2015; and July 16, 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 this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2015, provides the discussion of the comments received from the State of Vermont and the public. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated June 25, and September 16, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The changes increase the voltage limit for the diesel generator full load rejection test specified by technical specification (TS) and surveillance requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10. Additionally, the proposed amendment adds Note 3 to TS SR 3.8.1.10 that allows for full load reject testing. Date of issuance: December 17, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No(s).: 187/187, and 194/194. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15293A589. Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos.NPF-72 and NPF-77 and Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66: The amendments revise the TSs and License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13907). The June 25, and September 16, 2015, supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the scope of the proposed action or affect the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Date of application for amendment: November 17, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated April 21, June 24, and November 16, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.2, ``Primary Coolant Sources Outside Containment,'' The approved change requires integrated leak testing to be performed at least once per 24 months and adds a provision to apply surveillance [[Page 268]] requirement 3.0.2 to TS 5.5.2 requirements. Date of issuance: December 18, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No: 208. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15251A584; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8361). The April 21, 2015 supplement, contained clarifying information, which changed the NRC staff's initial proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, therefore the notice was later supplemented on May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27197). The June 24, and November 16, 2015 supplements did not affect the revised no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois Date of application for amendment: April 24, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated April 30, 2015, and October 9, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendments add new low degraded voltage relays and timers, with appropriate settings, on each engineered safety features bus. The technical specifications and surveillance requirements are changed to add appropriate operational and testing requirements for the new relays and timers. Date of issuance: December 21, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented during subsequent refueling outages as specified in the amendments. Amendment No(s).: 188/188 and 195/195. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15307A776. Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos.NPF-72 and NPF-77 and Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66: The amendments revises the Technical Specifications and License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR 52065). The April 30, 2015, and October 9, 2015, supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Date of application for amendments: December 22, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated September 29, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments add a new Technical Specification (TS) 3.10.8, ``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing,'' to allow reactor operations to remain in Mode 4 for specified testing with reactor coolant temperatures above the Mode 4 limit. TS 3.10.8 may only be used for (1) performance of an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, (2) as a consequence of maintaining adequate pressure for an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, or (3) as a consequence of maintaining adequate pressure for control rod scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test. Date of issuance: December 17, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 248, 241, 219, 205, 261, and 256. Publicly- available versions can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15324A439; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, DPR-29, and DPR-30: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and the Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 17089). The supplemental letter dated September 29, 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 December 17, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated August 10, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses (RFOLs) and Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the license amendments revised various sections associated with steam generators, including changes consistent with the guidance provided in Technical Specification Task Force Traveler-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML110610350). Date of issuance: December 16, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 296 (Unit 1) and 184 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15294A439; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. RFOL Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments revised the RFOLs and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27198). The supplemental letter dated August 10, 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. [[Page 269]] The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated December 16, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan Date of amendment request: December 17, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated July 9, 2015, and October 30, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, technical specifications to allow surveillance testing of the onsite standby emergency diesel generators during modes in which it was previously restricted. Specifically, the changes remove the mode restrictions in the notes of the surveillance requirements 3.8.1.10, EDG single largest load rejection test, 3.8.1.11, EDG full load rejection test, and 3.8.1.15, EDG endurance run. Date of issuance: December 11, 2015. Effective date: These amendments are effective as of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 140 days of issuance. Amendment No(s).: 330 for Unit 1 and 311 for Unit 2. A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15327A217; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13909). The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2015, and October 30, 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 December 11, 2015. 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: December 26, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated September 11, September 18, November 2, and December 8, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the current emergency action level scheme to a scheme based on Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012. Date of issuance: December 15, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented by June 30, 2016. Amendment No.: 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15288A005; 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 operating license. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR 5801). The supplemental letters dated September 11, September 18, November 2, and December 8, 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 December 15, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated September 30, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the stored diesel fuel oil and lube oil numerical volume requirements in the Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing them with diesel operating time requirements consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.'' Date of issuance: December 14, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No(s).: 292 (Unit 1), 317 (Unit 2), and 275 (Unit 3). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15324A247; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 17104). The supplemental letter dated September 30, 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 December 14, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: A comment was received on the initial Federal Register notice regarding a Grand Gulf amendment, but the comment was unrelated to this licensing action. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated June 3, 2015, and July 30, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' to lower the value of the reactor steam dome pressure safety limit from the current 785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 585 psig. Lowering of this safety limit will effectively expand the validity range for the units' critical power correlations and the calculation of the minimum critical power ratio. Specifically, the revised value of 585 psig is consistent with the lower range of the critical power correlations currently in use at the units. The revised value will also adequately bound a pressure regulator failure open transient event. No hardware, design or operational change is involved with this amendment. Date of issuance: December 16, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1), 318 (Unit 2), and 276 (Unit 3). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15287A213; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. [[Page 270]] Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2015 (80 FR 25721). The supplemental letters dated June 3, 2015, and July 30, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated December 16, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The comment received on Amendment Nos. 293, 318, and 276 is addressed in the SE dated December 16, 2015. V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances) 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 for the amendment 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. Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments. In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible. Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved. The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(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 application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, 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. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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 [[Page 271]] 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 March 7, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by March 7, 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 [[Page 272]] 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 as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-498, South Texas Project, Unit 1, Matagorda County, Texas Date of amendment request: December 3, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated December 9, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a footnote to Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.2, ``Control Rod Assemblies,'' to permit operation with 56 full-length control rods during Unit 1 Cycle 20 instead of the normal 57 full-length control rod assemblies. This extension will allow completion of plans to repair or replace a single unreliable control rod. This amendment was necessitated by the discovery of the unreliable control rod during start up testing following the recently completed Unit 1 refueling outage. Date of issuance: December 11, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 24 hours of its date of issuance. Amendment No.: Unit 1--208. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15343A128; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-76: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC): No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2015. Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of December, 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2015-33260 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices 257
Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to The NRC cautions you not to include
20024–0977; or http://www.regulations.gov and search identifying or contact information that
Commercial courier: Address package for Docket ID NRC–2015–0288. Address you do not want to be publicly
to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of questions about NRC dockets to Carol disclosed in your comment submission.
Congress, James Madison Memorial Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; The NRC posts all comment
Building, LM–403, 101 Independence email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. submissions at http://
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559– • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, www.regulations.gov, as well as entering
6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier Office of Administration, Mail Stop: the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE. and D OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear The NRC does not routinely edit
Street NE., Washington, DC; or Regulatory Commission, Washington, comment submissions to remove
Hand delivery: Library of Congress, DC 20555–0001. identifying or contact information.
James Madison Memorial Building, LM– For additional direction on obtaining If you are requesting or aggregating
401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., information and submitting comments, comments from other persons for
Washington, DC 20559–6000. see ‘‘Obtaining Information and submission to the NRC, then you should
Submitting Comments’’ in the inform those persons not to include
Dated: December 29, 2015.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of identifying or contact information that
Suzanne M. Barnett, they do not want to be publicly
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. this document.
disclosed in their comment submission.
[FR Doc. 2015–33120 Filed 1–4–16; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Your request should state that the NRC
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear does not routinely edit comment
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear submissions to remove such information
Regulatory Commission, Washington, before making the comment
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– submissions available to the public or
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
3760, email: Mable.Henderson@nrc.gov. entering the comment submissions into
COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADAMS.
[NRC–2015–0288]
I. Obtaining Information and II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Submitting Comments of Amendments to Facility Operating
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and
A. Obtaining Information
Licenses and Combined Licenses Proposed No Significant Hazards
Involving No Significant Hazards Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– Consideration Determination
Considerations 0288 when contacting the NRC about The Commission has made a
the availability of information for this proposed determination that the
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory action. You may obtain publicly-
Commission. following amendment requests involve
available information related to this no significant hazards consideration.
ACTION: Biweekly notice. action by any of the following methods: Under the Commission’s regulations in
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) http://www.regulations.gov and search
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Regulations (10 CFR), this means that
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0288. operation of the facility in accordance
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is with the proposed amendment would
Access and Management System not (1) involve a significant increase in
publishing this regular biweekly notice. (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
The Act requires the Commission to the probability or consequences of an
available documents online in the accident previously evaluated, (2) create
publish notice of any amendments ADAMS Public Documents collection at
issued, or proposed to be issued, and the possibility of a new or different kind
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ of accident from any accident
grants the Commission the authority to adams.html. To begin the search, select
issue and make immediately effective previously evaluated, or (3) involve a
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then significant reduction in a margin of
any amendment to an operating license select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
or combined license, as applicable, safety. The basis for this proposed
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, determination for each amendment
upon a determination by the please contact the NRC’s Public
Commission that such amendment request is shown below.
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at The Commission is seeking public
involves no significant hazards 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by comments on this proposed
consideration, notwithstanding the email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The determination. Any comments received
pendency before the Commission of a ADAMS accession number for each within 30 days after the date of
request for a hearing from any person. document referenced (if it is available in publication of this notice will be
This biweekly notice includes all ADAMS) is provided the first time that considered in making any final
notices of amendments issued, or it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY determination.
proposed to be issued from December 8, INFORMATION section of this document. Normally, the Commission will not
2015, to December 21, 2015. The last
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and issue the amendment until the
biweekly notice was published on expiration of 60 days after the date of
purchase copies of public documents at
December 22, 2015. publication of this notice. The
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DATES: Comments must be filed by White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Commission may issue the license
February 4, 2016. A request for a Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. amendment before expiration of the 60-
hearing must be filed March 7, 2016. day period provided that its final
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
B. Submitting Comments determination is that the amendment
by any of the following methods (unless Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– involves no significant hazards
this document describes a different 0288, facility name, unit number(s), consideration. In addition, the
method for submitting comments on a application date, and subject in your Commission may issue the amendment
specific subject): comment submission. prior to the expiration of the 30-day
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices 261
accident from any accident previously The NRC staff has reviewed the change relocates the specified [f]requencies
evaluated? licensee’s analysis and, based on this for periodic SR to licensee control under the
The proposed amendment is a one-time review, it appears that the three SFCP. No new or different accidents result
extension of the required completion times from utilizing the proposed change. The
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
from 72 hours for the Charging Pumps, change does not involve a physical alteration
Emergency Core Cooling Systems
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of
Subsystems, Containment Spray System, proposes to determine that the equipment will be installed) or a change in
Spray Additive System, Containment Cooling amendment request involves no the methods governing normal plant
System, Auxiliary Feedwater System, significant hazards consideration. operation. In addition, the change does not
Component Cooling Water System, ESW Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, impose any new or different requirements.
System, Essential Services Chilled Water Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy The change does not alter assumptions made
System, and AC [Alternating Current] Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, in the safety analysis. The proposed change
Sources systems to 336 hours. Additionally, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC is consistent with the safety analysis
proposed amendment is a one-time extension 28202. assumptions and current plant operating
of the required completion times from 7 days NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. practice.
for the Control Room Emergency Filtration Therefore, the proposed change does not
Beasley.
System and the Reactor Auxiliary Building create the possibility of a new or different
Emergency Exhaust Systems to 336 hours. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, kind of accident from any accident
The requested change does not involve the Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert previously evaluated.
addition or removal of any plant system, Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
structure, or component. a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
The proposed temporary TS changes do Response: No.
not affect the basic design, operation, or Date of amendment request: The proposed License Amendment Request
function of any of the systems associated November 5, 2015. A publicly-available is an administrative change. The proposed
with the TS impacted by the amendment. version is in ADAMS under Accession change relocates the specified [f]requencies
Implementation of the proposed amendment No. ML15310A064. for periodic SR to licensee control under the
will not create the possibility of a new or Description of amendments request: SFCP. The design, operation, testing
different kind of accident from that The amendments would revise the methods, and acceptance criteria for systems,
previously evaluated. structures, and components, specified in
Calvert Cliffs Technical Specifications applicable codes and standards (or
HNP intends to isolate and replace the ‘A’ (TSs) to relocate certain Surveillance
ESW pump. During the period in which the alternatives approved for use by the NRC)
Requirements Frequencies to the will continue to be met as described in the
‘A’ Train ESW pump is not available, the
previously approved Surveillance plant licensing basis (including the Final
(NSW System will remain available to supply
the ‘A’ Train ESW loads and the ‘B’ Train Frequency Control Program. Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS),
ESW Train will be operable. Basis for proposed no significant since these are not affected by [relocating] the
Throughout the pump replacement project, hazards consideration determination: SF[s]. Similarly, there is no impact to safety
compensatory measures will be in place to As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the analysis acceptance criteria as described in
provide additional assurance that the affected licensee has provided its analysis of the the plant licensing basis.
systems will continue to be capable of issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the proposed change does not
performing their intended safety functions. involve a significant reduction in a margin of
consideration, which is presented safety.
In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not below, with NRC staff revisions
impact any plant systems that are accident provided in [brackets]: The NRC staff has reviewed the
initiators and does not impact any safety licensee’s analysis and, based on this
analysis. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or review, it appears that the three
Therefore, the proposed changes do not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
create the possibility of a new or different consequences of any accident previously
kind of accident from any accident evaluated? satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
previously evaluated. Response: No. proposes to determine that the
3. Does the proposed amendment involve The proposed License Amendment Request amendments request involves no
is an administrative change. The proposed significant hazards consideration.
a significant reduction in the margin of
change relocates the specified [f]requencies Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
safety?
for periodic Surveillance Requirements [SRs]
Margin of safety is related to the
to licensee control under the SFCP.
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
confidence in the ability of the fission Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Surveillance Frequencies (SF) are not an
product barriers to perform their design initiator to any accident previously Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
functions during and following an accident evaluated. As a result, the probability of any NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
situation. These barriers include the fuel accident previously evaluated is not
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the significantly increased. The systems and Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
containment system. The performance of the components required by the TS for which the Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point
fuel cladding, reactor coolant, and SF are relocated are still required to be Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County,
containment systems will not be impacted by operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the New York
the proposed LAR. SR, and be capable of performing any
Additionally, the proposed amendment mitigation function assumed in the accident
Date of amendment request: March
does not involve a change in the operation analysis. As a result, the consequences of any 26, 2015. This Notice is regarding the
of the plant. The activity only extends the accident previously evaluated are not application dated May 12, 2015, which
amount of time the ‘A’ Train ESW system is significantly increased. superseded the application dated March
allowed to be inoperable for the replacement Therefore, the proposed change does not 26, 2015, ADAMS Accession Nos.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
of the ‘A’ ESW pump to improve design involve a significant increase in the ML15089A231 and ML15089A233. A
margin. probability or consequences of an accident publicly-available version is in ADAMS
The estimated incremental conditional previously evaluated. under Accession No. ML15134A232.
core damage probability (ICCDP) during the 2. Does the proposed amendment create
14 day completion time extension is much the possibility of a new or different kind of
Description of amendment request:
less than the limits presented in Regulatory accident from any previously evaluated? The NRC staff has previously made a
Guide 1.177. Therefore, it is concluded that Response: No. proposed determination that the
the proposed changes do not involve a The proposed License Amendment Request amendment request dated March 26,
significant reduction in the margin of safety. is an administrative change. The proposed 2015, involves no significant hazards
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/5.svg)
![262 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices
consideration (80 FR 58518; September Therefore, the proposed changes do not in ADAMS under Accession No.
29, 2015). Subsequently, by application involve a significant increase in the ML15281A028.
dated May 12, 2015, the licensee probability or consequences of an accident Description of amendment request:
previously evaluated. The amendments would allow the
superseded the March 26, 2015,
2. Do the proposed changes create the
amendment request in its entirety. proposed changes to Nine Mile Point,
possibility of a new or different kind of
Accordingly, this Notice of the May 12, accident from any previously evaluated? Unit 1 (NMP1) and Nine Mile Point,
2015, application supersedes the Response: No. Unit 2 (NMP2) TSs to provide an
previous Notice in its entirety. No new or different accidents result from allowance for brief, inadvertent,
This amendment request involves the utilizing the proposed changes. The changes simultaneous opening of redundant
adoption of approved changes to do not involve a physical alteration of the secondary containment personnel
NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard Technical plant (i.e., no new or different type of access doors during normal entry and
Specifications [STS] General Electric equipment will be installed) or a change in exit conditions. Specifically, NMP1
BWR/4 Plants,’’ Revision 4.0, to allow the methods governing normal plant Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
operation. In addition, the LAR changes do
relocation of specific Technical not impose any new or different
3.4.3 and Surveillance Requirement (SR)
Specifications (TS) surveillance requirements. The changes do not alter 4.4.3 are modified to acknowledge that
frequencies to a licensee-controlled assumptions made in the safety analysis. The secondary containment access openings
program. The proposed changes are proposed changes are consistent with the may be open for entry and exit. Further,
described in Technical Specification safety analysis assumptions and current plant the definition for Reactor Building
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 425 operating practice. Integrity, specified in NMP1 TS
‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Therefore, the proposed changes do not Definition 1.12, is revised for
Licensee Control—RITSTF [Risk create the possibility of a new or different consistency to reflect the changes
Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b,’’ Revision kind of accident from any accident proposed to TS Section 3.4.3 LCO and
previously evaluated.
3 (TSTF–425) ADAMS Accession No. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a
SR 4.4.3. The NMP2 SR 3.6.4.1.3 is
ML090850642, and are described in the significant reduction in the margin of safety? modified to acknowledge that secondary
Notice of Availability published in the Response: No. containment access openings may be
FR on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The The design, operation, testing methods, open for entry and exit.
proposed changes are consistent with and acceptance criteria for systems, Basis for proposed no significant
NRC-approved TSTF–425. The structures, and components (SSCs), specified hazards consideration determination:
proposed changes relocate surveillance in applicable codes and standards (or As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
frequencies to a licensee-controlled alternatives approved for use by the NRC) licensee has provided its analysis of the
will continue to be met as described in the issue of no significant hazards
program, the Surveillance Frequency plant licensing basis (including the final
Control Program (SFCP). The changes safety analysis report and bases to TS), since
consideration, which is presented
are applicable to licensees using these are not affected by changes to the below:
probabilistic risk guidelines contained surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is 1. Do the proposed changes involve a
in NRC-approved NEI (Nuclear Energy no impact to safety analysis acceptance significant increase in the probability or
Institute) 04–10, ‘‘Risk-Informed criteria as described in the plant licensing consequences of an accident previously
Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated evaluated?
Risk-Informed Method for Control of surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform Response: No.
a probabilistic risk evaluation using the The proposed changes address temporary
Surveillance Frequencies’’ (ADAMS guidance contained in NRC approved NEI conditions during which the secondary
Accession No. ML071360456). 04–10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the TS containment SRs are not met. The secondary
Basis for proposed no significant SFCP. NEI 04–10, Rev. 1, methodology containment is not an initiator of any
hazards consideration determination: provides reasonable acceptance guidelines accident previously evaluated. As a result,
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the and methods for evaluating the risk increase the probability of any accident previously
licensee has provided its analysis of the of proposed changes to surveillance evaluated is not increased. The consequences
issue of no significant hazards frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide of an accident previously evaluated while
consideration, which is presented 1.177. using the proposed changes are not impacted
Therefore, the proposed changes do not and are bounded by the existing design bases
below: calculations and analyses. As a result, the
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
1. Do the proposed changes involve a safety. consequences of an accident previously
significant increase in the probability or evaluated are not significantly increased.
consequences of any accident previously The NRC staff has reviewed the Therefore, the proposed changes do not
evaluated? licensee’s analysis and, based on this involve a significant increase in the
Response: No. review, it appears that the three probability or consequences of an accident
The proposed changes relocate the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are previously evaluated.
specified frequencies for periodic satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 2. Do the proposed changes create the
surveillance requirements to licensee control possibility of a new or different kind of
proposes to determine that the
under a new Surveillance Frequency Control accident from any accident previously
Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an amendment request involves no evaluated?
initiator to any accident previously significant hazards consideration. Response: No.
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, The proposed changes do not alter the
accident previously evaluated is not Associate General Counsel, Exelon protection system design, create new failure
significantly increased. The systems and Generation Company, LLC, 4300 modes, or change any modes of operation.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
components required by the technical Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. The proposed changes do not involve a
specifications for which the surveillance NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. physical alteration of the plant, and no new
frequencies are relocated are still required to or different kind of equipment will be
be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for Exelon Generation Company, LLC, installed. Consequently, there are no new
the surveillance requirements, and be Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine initiators that could result in a new or
capable of performing any mitigation Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and different kind of accident.
function assumed in the accident analysis. 2, Oswego County, New York Therefore, the proposed changes do not
As a result, the consequences of any accident create the possibility of a new or different
previously evaluated are not significantly Date of amendment request: October kind of accident from any accident
increased. 8, 2015. A publicly-available version is previously evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices 263
3. Do the proposed changes involve a Response: No. and components, and through the parameters
significant reduction in a margin of safety? The proposed change to the reactor steam for safe operation and setpoints for the
Response: No. dome pressure in Reactor Core Safety Limits actuation of equipment relied upon to
The proposed changes would provide an 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the use of respond to transients and design basis
allowance for brief, inadvertent, the analytical methods used to determine the accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21
simultaneous opening of redundant safety limits that have been previously condition by General Electric determined
secondary containment personnel access reviewed and approved by the NRC. The that since the Minimum Critical Power Ratio
doors during normal entry and exit proposed change is in accordance with an improves during the PRFO transient, there is
conditions. The allowance for both an inner NRC approved critical power correlation no decrease in the safety margin and
and outer secondary containment access door methodology, and as such, maintains therefore there is no threat to fuel cladding
to be open simultaneously for entry and exit required safety margins. The proposed integrity. The proposed change in reactor
does not affect the safety function of change does not adversely affect accident steam dome pressure supports the current
secondary containment as the doors are initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the safety margin, which protects the fuel
promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby design assumptions, conditions, or cladding integrity during a depressurization
restoring the secondary containment configuration of the facility or the manner in transient, but does not change the
boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent, which the plant is operated and maintained. requirements governing operation or
simultaneous opening and closing of The proposed change does not alter or availability of safety equipment assumed to
redundant secondary containment personnel prevent the ability of structures, systems, and operate to preserve the margin of safety. The
access doors during entry and exit conditions components (SSCs) from performing their change does not alter the behavior of plant
does not affect the ability of the Emergency intended function to mitigate the equipment, which remains unchanged.
Ventilation System (NMP1) or the Standby consequences of an initiating event within The proposed change to Reactor Core
Gas Treatment (SGT) System (NMP2) to the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed
Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 is consistent
establish the required secondary containment change does not require any physical change
with and within the capabilities of the
vacuum. to any plant SSCs nor does it require any
applicable NRC approved critical power
change in systems or plant operations. The
Therefore, the safety function of the correlation for the fuel designs in use at
proposed change is consistent with the safety
secondary containment is not affected. analysis assumptions and resultant PBAPS Units 2 and 3. No setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are altered by
The NRC staff has reviewed the consequences.
Lowering the value of reactor steam dome the proposed change. The proposed change
licensee’s analysis and, based on this does not alter the manner in which the safety
review, it appears that the three pressure in the TS has no physical effect on
plant equipment and therefore, no impact on limits are determined. This change is
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consistent with plant design and does not
the course of plant transients. The change is
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff an analytical exercise to demonstrate the change the TS operability requirements; thus,
proposes to determine that the applicability of correlations and previously evaluated accidents are not
amendment request involves no methodologies. There are no known affected by this proposed change.
significant hazards consideration. operational or safety benefits. Therefore, the proposed change does not
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
Associate General Counsel, Exelon involve a significant increase in the safety.
Generation Company, LLC, 4300 probability or consequences of an accident The NRC staff has reviewed the
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. previously evaluated. licensee’s analysis and, based on this
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. 2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
review, it appears that the three
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and accident from any accident previously standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 evaluated? satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic Response: No. proposes to determine that the
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and The proposed reduction in the reactor amendment request involves no
dome pressure safety limit from 785 psig significant hazards consideration.
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania [pounds per square inch gauge] to 685 psig Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Date of amendment request: is a change based upon previously approved Associate General Counsel, Exelon
December 15, 2015. A publicly-available documents and does not involve changes to Generation Company, LLC, 4300
version is in ADAMS under Accession the plant hardware or its operating
characteristics. As a result, no new failure Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 60555.
No. ML15349A800. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
modes are being introduced. There are no
Description of amendment request: hardware changes nor are there any changes Broaddus.
The proposed amendments would in the method by which any plant systems
reduce the reactor steam dome pressure PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272
perform a safety function. No new accident
stated in the Technical Specifications scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating
(TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. single failures are introduced as a result of Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem
The proposed change addresses a 10 the proposed change. County, New Jersey
CFR part 21 issue concerning the The proposed change does not introduce Date of amendment request:
potential to violate the safety limits any new accident precursors, nor does it September 11, 2015, as supplemented
involve any physical plant alterations or
during a pressure regulator failure by letter dated November 5, 2015.
changes in the methods governing normal
maximum demand (open) (PRFO) plant operation. Also, the change does not Publicly-available versions are in
transient. impose any new or different requirements or ADAMS under Accession Nos.
Basis for proposed no significant eliminate any existing requirements. The ML15254A387 and ML15309A750,
hazards consideration determination: change does not alter assumptions made in respectively.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the safety analysis. Description of amendment request:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
licensee has provided its analysis of the Therefore, the proposed change does not The amendments would revise the
issue of no significant hazards create the possibility of a new or different technical specifications to support
consideration, which is presented kind of accident from any accident
planned plant modifications to
previously evaluated.
below: 3. Does the proposed change involve a implement chiller replacements and for
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? performing maintenance on common
significant increase in the probability or Response: No. line components.
consequences of an accident previously The margin of safety is established through Basis for proposed no significant
evaluated? the design of the plant structures, systems, hazards consideration determination:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/7.svg)
![264 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 2. Do the proposed changes create the PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272
licensee has provided its analysis of the possibility of a new or different kind of and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating
issue of no significant hazards accident from any accident previously Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem
consideration, which is presented evaluated? County, New Jersey
below: Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS permitting
Date of amendment request: October
1. Do the proposed changes involve a
AB CH system Two Chiller and Cross-Tied 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is
significant increase in the probability or in ADAMS under Accession No.
consequences of an accident previously operation do not introduce any new accident
initiators or create any new failure ML15285A014.
evaluated? Description of amendment request:
Response: No. mechanisms or malfunctions. The analyses
The Auxiliary Building Chilled Water (AB demonstrate the system continues to perform The amendments would revise the
CH) system will continue to meet the design its design functions for both normal and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
cooling requirements for both normal and accident conditions. To ensure the system Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specification
accident conditions. The Two chiller and has adequate cooling capability, restrictions (TS) 3.6.2.3, ‘‘Containment Cooling
Cross Tied configuration analyses verify the are placed in TS isolating non-safety related System,’’ to correct a discrepancy
capability of the system to perform its design loads, verifying certain environmental between TS mode applicability and the
function. The configuration analyses were shutdown mode in the associated action
conditions, and restricting single filtration
performed assuming that one of the required statements. The request also proposes
chillers is out of service for the supplying train alignment operation. These restrictions
unit to account for a possible failure of a do not cause the system to be operated changes to the Unit Nos. 1 and 2, TS
chiller, demonstrating that only the outside its design basis and therefore do not 3.7.1.1, ‘‘Safety Valves,’’ to correct
remaining required chillers are required to be create any new failure mechanisms. discrepancies between TS mode
operating for normal operation and accident Therefore, the proposed change does not applicability and action statement
conditions. This supports operating with the create the possibility of a new or different shutdown modes.
required chillers available and the potential kind of accident from any previously Basis for proposed no significant
loss of a chiller during an accident as the evaluated. hazards consideration determination:
single failure, or the unexpected loss of a 3. Do the proposed changes involve a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
chiller during normal operation.
The AB CH system is not an initiator or
significant reduction in a margin of safety? licensee has provided its analysis of the
precursor to any anticipated (or abnormal) Response: No. issue of no significant hazards
operational transients or postulated design The proposed amendment does not alter consideration, which is presented
basis accidents. Operating with only two setpoints or limits established or assumed by below:
chillers required does not alter the design any accident analyses. The proposed change
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
requirements of the system; the required does not exceed or alter a design basis or a significant increase in the probability or
cooling capability is still met. The AB CH safety limit (i.e., Control Room Area consequences of an accident previously
systems for Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 are temperatures remain below design evaluated?
designed to allow the systems to be cross- requirements), therefore it does not Response: No.
tied; allowing for the pumps and chillers of significantly reduce the margin of safety. In Neither the Containment Fan Cooling Units
one Unit to cool the heat loads of both Units.
Two Chiller and Cross-Tied configuration, (CFCUs) nor the MSSVs [main steam line
In cross-tie configuration the analyses
demonstrate the system will continue to restrictions are placed in the TS ensuring the code safety valves] are accident initiators.
provide required cooling capability to the AB CH system will continue to provide These proposed changes will not increase the
control room and safety related areas during adequate cooling during normal and accident probability of occurrence of any design basis
normal operation and in the event of an conditions. The Control Room area ambient accident since the corrections to the affected
accident. air temperature will not exceed the allowable Technical Specifications, in and of
Therefore there is no increase in the themselves, cannot initiate an accident.
temperature for continuous duty rating for
probability of any previously evaluated Should a previously evaluated accident
the equipment and instrumentation and the
accident. occur, the proposed changes will ensure that
control room will remain habitable for the plant equipment is operable in all
Two Chiller or Cross-Tied operation has no operations personnel during and following
effect on the consequences of any previously required applicable modes of operation and
all credible accident conditions. that the Technical Specification action
analyzed accident. Evaluations were
performed assuming that one of the required The sharing of the AB CH system between statements are consistent with those
chillers is out of service to account for a Units in the Cross-Tied configuration does applicable modes. There will be no impact
possible failure of a chiller. The two chiller not impair its ability to perform its safety on the source term or pathways assumed in
analyses determined that certain heat loads function for both normal and accident accidents previously evaluated. No design
are required to be isolated, certain conditions. Design cooling requirements for functions of structures, systems and
environmental conditions are required, and the accident condition unit continue to be components required to mitigate the
that single filtration alignment of the met, and the operating unit cooling consequences of an accident are affected.
CREACS [Control Room Emergency Air requirements are also met such that there can Therefore, the consequences of an accident
Conditioning System] must be restricted. The previously evaluated are not significantly
be an orderly shutdown and cool down.
cross-tied analyses determined that certain increased.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a
heat loads are required to be isolated, certain Therefore, the proposed change does not
significant reduction in the margin of safety. involve a significant increase in the
environmental conditions are required, and
both trains of the CREACS must be in service. probability or consequences of an accident
The NRC staff has reviewed the previously evaluated.
The proposed TS changes incorporate these
restrictions ensuring the design requirements
licensee’s analysis and, based on this 2. Does the proposed amendment create
of the system will continue to be met. The review, it appears that the three the possibility of a new or different kind of
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
temperatures of the Control Area Rooms standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are accident from any accident previously
continue to be below the acceptance criteria satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated?
during AB CH system Two Chiller and Cross- proposes to determine that the Response: No.
Tied operations for both normal operation amendment request involves no The proposed amendment does not involve
and accident conditions. significant hazards consideration. physical changes (installing new equipment
Therefore this proposed change does not or modifying existing equipment) related to
involve a significant increase in the Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, the design functions or operations of the
probability or consequences of an accident PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, CFCUs or MSSVs. In addition, the proposed
previously evaluated. Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. changes to the affected Technical
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices 265
Specification applicability modes and action 1. Does the proposed amendment involve Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M.
statement modes will not create the potential a significant increase in the probability or Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,
for any new initiating events or transients to consequences of an accident previously 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
occur in the physical plant. evaluated? Washington, DC 20004–2514.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
create the possibility of a new or different The proposed changes to identify that there
kind of accident from any previously is more than one turbine building sump and
Burkhart.
evaluated. to add two turbine building sump pumps Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
3. Does the proposed amendment involve (WWS–MP–07A and B) to [combined license] Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? COL Appendix C, Section 2.3.29, and 296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units
Response: No. corresponding Table 2.3.29–1 will provide
The proposed changes, which correct a
(BFN) 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
consistency within the current licensing
non-conservative TS and eliminate an basis. The main turbine building sumps and Alabama
inconsistency between applicability mode sump pumps are not safety-related Date of amendment request:
and action statement, do not exceed or alter components and do not interface with any September 16, 2015 (ADAMS Accession
a setpoint, design basis or safety limit. systems, structures, or components (SSC) No. ML15260B125).
Therefore, the proposed amendment does accident initiator or initiating sequence of Description of amendment request:
not involve a significant reduction in a events; thus, the probability of accidents The amendments would revise the
margin of safety. evaluated within the plant-specific [Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Units
The NRC staff has reviewed the affected. The proposed changes do not 1 and 2, by adding a new Specification
licensee’s analysis and, based on this involve a change to the predicted radiological (i.e., TS 3.3.8.3) to consolidate the
review, it appears that the three releases due to accident conditions, thus the requirements governing the safety
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consequences of accidents evaluated in the functions for the Emergency Core
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff UFSAR are not affected. Cooling System (ECCS) Preferred Pump
proposes to determine that the Therefore, the proposed amendment does Logic, Common Accident Signal (CAS)
amendment request involves no not involve a significant increase in the Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip
significant hazards consideration. probability or consequences of an accident Logic and for Unit 3, by adding a new
previously evaluated.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, 2. Does the proposed amendment create
Specification (i.e., TS 3.3.8.3) to
PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, the possibility of a new or different kind of consolidate the requirements governing
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. accident from any accident previously the safety functions for the CAS Logic,
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. evaluated? and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic for
Broaddus. Response: No. consistency with the changes to the,
The proposed changes to identify that there Units 1 and 2 TSs. The proposed change
South Carolina Electric and Gas is more than one turbine building sump and would relocate the existing
Company Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– to add two turbine sump pumps to the non- requirements for the CAS Logic from
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, safety waste water system (WWS) do not Units 1, 2, and 3, TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South affect any safety-related equipment, nor does
it add any new interface to safety-related
Sources—Operating,’’ to the proposed
Carolina TS 3.3.8.3. In addition, TS 3.3.5.1, Table
SSCs. No system or design function or
Date of amendment request: equipment qualification is affected by this 3.3.5.1–1, ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling
September 30, 2015. A publicly- change. The changes do not introduce a new System Instrumentation,’’ would be
available version is in ADAMS under failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of revised to incorporate references to the
Accession No. ML15273A115. events that could affect safety or safety- proposed TS 3.3.8.3.
related equipment. Basis for proposed no significant
Description of amendment request: Therefore, the proposed amendment does hazards consideration determination:
The proposed change, if approved, not create the possibility of a new or different As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
would depart from certain plant-specific kind of accident. licensee has provided its analysis of the
Tier 1 information by adding two 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
issue of no significant hazards
turbine building sump pumps to
Response: No. consideration, which is presented
accommodate the increased flow that
The WWS is a non-safety-related system below:
will be experienced during condensate
polishing system rinsing operations. that does not interface with any safety-related 1. Does the proposed change involve a
equipment. The proposed changes to identify significant increase in the probability or
The proposed change also indicates that that there is more than one turbine building consequences of an accident previously
there is more than one main turbine sump and to add two turbine building sump evaluated?
building sump. Because flow into the pumps do not affect any design code, Response: No.
turbine building sumps may be function, design analysis, safety analysis The proposed changes relocate and clarify
radiologically contaminated, the turbine input or result, or design/safety margin. No the requirements currently addressed in the
building sump pumps will cease safety analysis or design basis acceptance BFN TS governing the safety functions for the
operation if a high radiation signal is limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1
present. The proposed changes to Tier 1 the proposed change. and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic,
Therefore, the proposed amendment does and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic.
would have corresponding changes to
not involve a significant reduction in a Requirements are neither added nor deleted.
the Combined License (COL) Appendix margin of safety. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 continues to provide
C, however there are no associated Tier
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation],
2 changes required. The NRC staff has reviewed the Required Actions and Completion Times,
Basis for proposed no significant licensee’s analysis and, based on this and Surveillance Requirements for ECCS
hazards consideration determination: review, it appears that the three Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and
the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. A TVA risk
licensee has provided its analysis of the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff assessment has determined that the risk of
issue of no significant hazards proposes to determine that the changing the Completion Time for the ECCS
consideration, which is presented amendment request involves no Preferred Pump Logic from 24 hours to seven
below: significant hazards consideration. days, and maintaining the current
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/9.svg)
![266 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices
Surveillance Test Intervals as the current 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
Surveillance Test Interval for the rest of the Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. to Facility Operating Licenses and
ECCS Instrumentation in the technical Combined Licenses
specifications is acceptable. Because the NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G.
proposed changes do not require Beasley. During the period since publication of
modification of the plant or change the way the last biweekly notice, the
the logic systems are used, the proposed III. Previously Published Notices of Commission has issued the following
changes do not affect the current LOCA [loss- Consideration of Issuance of amendments. The Commission has
of-coolant accident] analysis of record. Amendments to Facility Operating determined for each of these
Based on the above discussions, the Licenses and Combined Licenses, amendments that the application
proposed changes do not involve an increase Proposed No Significant Hazards complies with the standards and
in the probability or consequences of an Consideration Determination, and
accident previously evaluated. requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
2. Does the proposed change create the
Opportunity for a Hearing of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
possibility of a new or different kind of Commission’s rules and regulations.
The following notices were previously The Commission has made appropriate
accident from any accident previously
evaluated? published as separate individual findings as required by the Act and the
Response: No. notices. The notice content was the Commission’s rules and regulations in
The proposed changes relocate and clarify same as above. They were published as 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the requirements currently addressed in the individual notices either because time the license amendment.
BFN TS governing the safety functions for the did not allow the Commission to wait A notice of consideration of issuance
ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 for this biweekly notice or because the
and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic,
of amendment to facility operating
and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic.
action involved exigent circumstances. license or combined license, as
Requirements are neither added nor deleted. They are repeated here because the applicable, proposed no significant
The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 continues to provide biweekly notice lists all amendments hazards consideration determination,
LCO, Required Actions and Completion issued or proposed to be issued and opportunity for a hearing in
Times, and Surveillance Requirements for involving no significant hazards connection with these actions, was
ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 consideration. published in the Federal Register as
and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, indicated.
and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. The For details, see the individual notice
in the Federal Register on the day and Unless otherwise indicated, the
proposed changes result in no physical
Commission has determined that these
change to the plant configuration or method page cited. This notice does not extend
of operation. amendments satisfy the criteria for
the notice period of the original notice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not categorical exclusion in accordance
create the possibility of a new or different Exelon Generation Company, LLC, with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
kind of accident from any accident Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
previously evaluated. Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), impact statement or environmental
3. Does the proposed change involve a Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois assessment need be prepared for these
significant reduction in a margin of safety? amendments. If the Commission has
Response: No. Date of amendment request: prepared an environmental assessment
The proposed changes relocate and clarify December 30, 2014, as supplemented by under the special circumstances
the requirements currently addressed in the
BFN TS governing the safety functions for the letters dated May 8, and July 30, 2015. provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 Publicly-available versions are in made a determination based on that
and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, ADAMS under Accession Nos. assessment, it is so indicated.
and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. ML14364A100, ML15128A305, and For further details with respect to the
Requirements are neither added nor deleted. ML15215A336, respectively. action see (1) the applications for
The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 continues to provide amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
LCO, Required Actions and Completion Brief description of amendment
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Times, and Surveillance Requirements for request: The NRC is considering Evaluation and/or Environmental
ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 issuance of an amendment to Facility Assessment as indicated. All of these
and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, Operating License Nos. DPR–19 and
and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. A TVA
items can be accessed as described in
DPR–25, issued to Exelon Generation the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
risk assessment has determined that the risk Company, LLC (the licensee), for
of changing the Completion Time for the Submitting Comments’’ section of this
ECCS Preferred Pump Logic from 24 hours to
operation of DNPS, Units 2 and 3. The document.
seven days, and maintaining the current proposed amendment uses a new
Criticality Safety Analysis (CSA) Duke Energy Florida, Inc. and Seminole
Surveillance Test Intervals as the current
Surveillance Test Interval for the rest of the methodology for performing the Electric Cooperative, Inc., Docket No.
ECCS Instrumentation in the technical criticality safety evaluation for legacy 50–302, Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear
specifications is acceptable. fuel types in addition to the new Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Accordingly, the proposed changes do not ATRIUM 10XM fuel design in the DNPS Date of application for amendment:
involve a significant reduction in a margin of May 7, 2015.
spent fuel pools. In addition, the
safety. Brief description of amendment: The
licensee’s amendment request proposes
The NRC staff has reviewed the a change to the DNPS Technical amendment revised Technical
licensee’s analysis and, based on this Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ‘‘Criticality,’’ in
review, it appears that the three support of the new CSA. 5.6.2.3 by changing the title of the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are position with overall responsibility for
Date of publication of individual the safe handling and storage of nuclear
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the notice in Federal Register: November fuel and licensee initiated changes to
amendment request involves no 5, 2015 (80 FR 68573). the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
significant hazards consideration. Expiration date of individual notice: from either the Plant Manager or the
Attorney for licensee: General December 7, 2015 (public comments); Decommissioning Director to the
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, January 5, 2015 (hearing requests). General Manager Decommissioning.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/10.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices 269
The Commission’s related evaluation Brief description of amendment: The Renewed Facility Operating License
of the amendment is contained in an SE amendment revised the current Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68:
dated December 16, 2015. emergency action level scheme to a Amendments revised the Renewed
No significant hazards consideration scheme based on Nuclear Energy Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
comments received: No. Institute (NEI) 99–01, Revision 6, Date of initial notice in Federal
‘‘Development of Emergency Action Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR
Indiana Michigan Power Company,
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ 17104). The supplemental letter dated
Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald
November 2012. September 30, 2015, provided
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Date of issuance: December 15, 2015. additional information that clarified the
Berrien County, Michigan
Effective date: As of the date of application, did not expand the scope of
Date of amendment request: issuance and shall be implemented by the application as originally noticed,
December 17, 2014, as supplemented by June 30, 2016. and did not change the staff’s original
letters dated July 9, 2015, and October Amendment No.: 285. A publicly- proposed no significant hazards
30, 2015. available version is in ADAMS under consideration determination as
Brief description of amendments: The Accession No. ML15288A005; published in the Federal Register.
amendments revise the Donald C. Cook documents related to this amendment The Commission’s related evaluation
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, technical are listed in the Safety Evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
specifications to allow surveillance enclosed with the amendment. Safety Evaluation dated December 14,
testing of the onsite standby emergency Renewed Facility Operating License 2015.
diesel generators during modes in No. DPR–40: The amendment revised No significant hazards consideration
which it was previously restricted. the operating license. comments received: A comment was
Specifically, the changes remove the Date of initial notice in Federal received on the initial Federal Register
mode restrictions in the notes of the Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR notice regarding a Grand Gulf
surveillance requirements 3.8.1.10, EDG 5801). The supplemental letters dated amendment, but the comment was
single largest load rejection test, September 11, September 18, November unrelated to this licensing action.
3.8.1.11, EDG full load rejection test, 2, and December 8, 2015, provided Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
and 3.8.1.15, EDG endurance run. additional information that clarified the
Date of issuance: December 11, 2015. Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296,
application, did not expand the scope of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2,
Effective date: These amendments are
the application as originally noticed, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
effective as of the date of issuance and
and did not change the staff’s original Date of amendment request:
shall be implemented within 140 days
proposed no significant hazards December 11, 2014, as supplemented by
of issuance.
Amendment No(s).: 330 for Unit 1 and consideration determination as letters dated June 3, 2015, and July 30,
311 for Unit 2. A publicly-available published in the Federal Register. 2015.
version is in ADAMS under Accession The Commission’s related evaluation Brief description of amendment: The
No. ML15327A217; documents related of the amendment is contained in a amendments revised Technical
to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation dated December 15, Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 2015. SLs [Safety Limits],’’ to lower the value
amendment. No significant hazards consideration of the reactor steam dome pressure
Renewed Facility Operating License comments received: No. safety limit from the current 785 pounds
Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: The Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket per square inch gauge (psig) to 585 psig.
amendments revise the Renewed Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, Lowering of this safety limit will
Facility Operating Licenses and the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 effectively expand the validity range for
Technical Specifications. and 3, Limestone County, Alabama the units’ critical power correlations
Date of initial notice in Federal and the calculation of the minimum
Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR Date of amendment request: critical power ratio. Specifically, the
13909). The supplemental letters dated December 11, 2014, as supplemented by revised value of 585 psig is consistent
July 9, 2015, and October 30, 2015, letter dated September 30, 2015. with the lower range of the critical
provided additional information that Brief description of amendments: The power correlations currently in use at
clarified the application, did not expand amendments revised the stored diesel the units. The revised value will also
the scope of the application as originally fuel oil and lube oil numerical volume adequately bound a pressure regulator
noticed, and did not change the staff’s requirements in the Technical failure open transient event. No
original proposed no significant hazards Specifications (TSs) by replacing them hardware, design or operational change
consideration determination as with diesel operating time requirements is involved with this amendment.
published in the Federal Register. consistent with Technical Specifications Date of issuance: December 16, 2015.
The Commission’s related evaluation Task Force Traveler-501, Revision 1, Effective date: As of its date of
of the amendment is contained in a ‘‘Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil issuance and shall be implemented
Safety Evaluation dated December 11, Volume Values to Licensee Control.’’ within 60 days.
2015. Date of issuance: December 14, 2015. Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1), 318
No significant hazards consideration Effective date: As of the date of (Unit 2), and 276 (Unit 3). A publicly-
issuance and shall be implemented available version is in ADAMS under
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
comments received: No.
within 60 days of issuance. Accession No. ML15287A213;
Omaha Public Power District, Docket Amendment No(s).: 292 (Unit 1), 317 documents related to these amendments
No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit (Unit 2), and 275 (Unit 3). A publicly- are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)
No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska available version is in ADAMS under enclosed with the amendments.
Date of amendment request: Accession No. ML15324A247; Renewed Facility Operating License
December 26, 2014, as supplemented by documents related to these amendments Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68:
letters dated September 11, September are listed in the Safety Evaluation Amendments revised the Renewed
18, November 2, and December 8, 2015. enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/13.svg)
![272 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices
been created, the participant can then responsible for serving the document on are listed in the Safety Evaluation
submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is enclosed with the amendment.
for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail Facility Operating License No. NPF–
should be in Portable Document Format as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 76: The amendment revised the Facility
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited Operating License and TSs.
available on the NRC’s public Web site delivery service upon depositing the Public comments requested as to
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the proposed no significant hazards
submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having consideration (NSHC): No.
complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from The Commission’s related evaluation
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant of the amendment, finding of emergency
system. To be timely, an electronic or party to use E-Filing if the presiding circumstances, state consultation, and
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing officer subsequently determines that the final NSHC determination are contained
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern reason for granting the exemption from in a Safety Evaluation dated December
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of use of E-Filing no longer exists. 11, 2015.
a transmission, the E-Filing system Documents submitted in adjudicatory Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz,
time-stamps the document and sends proceedings will appear in the NRC’s Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111
the submitter an email notice electronic hearing docket which is Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
confirming receipt of the document. The available to the public at http:// DC 20004.
E-Filing system also distributes an email ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
notice that provides access to the pursuant to an order of the Commission, Pascarelli.
document to the NRC’s Office of the or the presiding officer. Participants are
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day
General Counsel and any others who requested not to include personal of December, 2015.
have advised the Office of the Secretary privacy information, such as social
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
that they wish to participate in the security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings, Anne T. Boland,
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those unless an NRC regulation or other law Director, Division of Operating Reactor
requires submission of such Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
participants separately. Therefore,
Regulation.
applicants and other participants (or information. However, in some
[FR Doc. 2015–33260 Filed 1–4–16; 8:45 am]
their counsel or representative) must instances, a request to intervene will
apply for and receive a digital ID require including information on local BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
certificate before a hearing request/ residence in order to demonstrate a
petition to intervene is filed so that they proximity assertion of interest in the
can obtain access to the document via proceeding. With respect to copyrighted NUCLEAR REGULATORY
the E-Filing system. works, except for limited excerpts that COMMISSION
A person filing electronically using serve the purpose of the adjudicatory [NRC–2015–0277]
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system filings and would constitute a Fair Use
may seek assistance by contacting the application, participants are requested Applications and Amendments to
NRC Meta System Help Desk through not to include copyrighted materials in Facility Operating Licenses and
the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the their submission. Combined Licenses Involving
NRC’s public Web site at http:// Proposed No Significant Hazards
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- STP Nuclear Operating Company, Considerations and Containing
submittals.html, by email to Docket No. 50–498, South Texas Project, Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- Unit 1, Matagorda County, Texas Information and Order Imposing
free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC Date of amendment request: Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Meta System Help Desk is available December 3, 2015, as supplemented by Unclassified Non-Safeguards
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern letter dated December 9, 2015. Information
Time, Monday through Friday, Brief description of amendment: The
excluding government holidays. amendment added a footnote to AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Participants who believe that they Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.2, Commission.
have a good cause for not submitting ‘‘Control Rod Assemblies,’’ to permit ACTION: License amendment request;
documents electronically must file an operation with 56 full-length control opportunity to comment, request a
exemption request, in accordance with rods during Unit 1 Cycle 20 instead of hearing, and petition for leave to
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper the normal 57 full-length control rod intervene; order.
filing requesting authorization to assemblies. This extension will allow
continue to submit documents in paper completion of plans to repair or replace SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
format. Such filings must be submitted a single unreliable control rod. This Commission (NRC) received and is
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the amendment was necessitated by the considering approval of two amendment
Office of the Secretary of the discovery of the unreliable control rod requests. The amendment requests are
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory during start up testing following the for Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1,
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– recently completed Unit 1 refueling and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1.
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and The NRC proposes to determine that the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
outage.
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, Date of issuance: December 11, 2015. amendment requests involve no
express mail, or expedited delivery Effective date: As of the date of significant hazards consideration. In
service to the Office of the Secretary, issuance and shall be implemented addition, each amendment request
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, within 24 hours of its date of issuance. contains sensitive unclassified non-
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Amendment No.: Unit 1—208. A safeguards information (SUNSI).
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking publicly-available version is in ADAMS DATES: Comments must be filed by
and Adjudications Staff. Participants under Accession No. ML15343A128; February 4, 2016. A request for a
filing a document in this manner are documents related to this amendment hearing must be filed by March 7, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_259/page/16.svg)
Document Created: 2016-01-05 01:46:34
Document Modified: 2016-01-05 01:46:34
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Biweekly notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be filed by February 4, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed March 7, 2016. | |
| Contact | Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 257 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR