81 FR 43646 - 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 128 (July 5, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 128 (July 5, 2016)
| Page Range | 43646-43656 | |
| FR Document | 2016-15659 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 43646-43656] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-15659] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0127] 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 June 7, 2016, to June 20, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on June 21, 2016. DATES: Comments must be filed by August 4, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 6, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0127. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear [[Page 43647]] Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected]. I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0127 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods: Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0127. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0127, 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 will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1- F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at 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 [[Page 43648]] 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 September 6, 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 September 6, 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 ten 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 [[Page 43649]] 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, see the application for amendment, which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: May 5, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16134A068. Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify Technical Specifications (TSs) by the removal of Note (c), which is no longer applicable from TS Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation,'' Function 6.f, ``Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Suction Transfer on Suction Pressure--Low,'' and the removal of an expired one-time Note for Required Action to restore Diesel Generator to OPERABLE status for TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating.'' 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. This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any Structure, System or Component (SSC) or its function during accident conditions. No new or different accidents result from the proposed changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant or any changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. [[Page 43650]] 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, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: February 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16064A020. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee). Specifically, the license amendment request (LAR) would revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' Required Action C.2.2.5, to allow each Keowee Hydroelectric Unit to be taken out of service for up to 55 days on a one-time basis for the purpose of generator stator replacement, subject to the implementation of specified contingency measures outlined in the LAR. 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 edits in square brackets: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that one Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is inoperable for [greater than] 72 hours, a Lee Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing both standby buses, two offsite power sources will be maintained available, and maintenance on electrical distribution systems will not be performed unless necessary. In addition, risk significant systems (Emergency Feedwater System, Protected Service Water System, and Standby Shutdown Facility) will be verified operable (meeting LCO requirements) within 72 hours of entering TS 3.8.1 Condition C (i.e., prior to use of the 55-day Completion Time of Required Action C.2.2.5). The temporary 55-day Completion Time will decrease the likelihood of an unplanned forced shutdown of all three Oconee Units and the potential safety consequences and operational risks associated with that action. Avoiding this risk offsets the risks associated with having a design basis event during the temporary 55- day completion time for having one KHU inoperable. The temporary addition of the 55-day Completion Time does not involve: (1) A physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new or different manner; or (4) a change to any set points for parameters which initiate protective or mitigation action. There is no adverse impact on containment integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main steam relief valve set points, or radwaste systems. No new radiological release pathways are created. The consequences of an event occurring during the temporary 55- day Completion Time are the same as those that would occur during the existing Completion Time. Duke Energy reviewed the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights concerning the configuration of [Oconee] with one KHU. The results of the risk analysis show a risk improvement if no maintenance is performed on the SSF, EFW System and AC Power System. The results of the risk analysis show a small risk increase using the average nominal maintenance unavailability values for the SSF, EFW System and AC Power System. By limiting maintenance, the risk results are expected to be between these two extremes (i.e., small risk impact). Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1. During the time period that one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the emergency power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory measures previously specified will be in place to minimize electrical power system vulnerabilities. The temporary 55-day Completion Time does not involve a physical effect on the Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk of an Oconee Unit trip or reactivity excursion. No new failure modes or credible accident scenarios are postulated from this activity. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not created. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1. During the time period that one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the emergency power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory measures previously specified will be in place to minimize electrical power system vulnerabilities. The proposed TS change does not involve: (1) a physical alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new or different manner; (4) a change to any set points for parameters which initiate protective or mitigation action; or (5) any impact on the fission product barriers or safety limits. Therefore, this request does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 S. Church St.--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), Brunswick County, North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: April 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16120A076. Description of amendment request: The amendments would (1) consolidate the Emergency Operations Facilities (EOFs) for BSEP, HNP, and RNP with the Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke [[Page 43651]] Energy) corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina; (2) change the BSEP, HNP, and RNP augmentation times to be consistent with those of the sites currently supported by the Duke Energy corporate EOF; and (3) decrease the frequency of the unannounced augmentation drill at BSEP from twice per year to once per year. 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 the BSEP, HNP, and RNP EOFs from their present onsite or near-site locations to the established corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changes the required response times for supplementing onsite personnel in response to a radiological emergency, and decreases the frequency of augmentation drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. It has been evaluated and determined that the change in response time does not significantly affect the ability to supplement the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows that the onsite staff can acceptably respond to an event for longer than the requested time for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed changes have no effect on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors, and do not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of the emergency response organization to perform its intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. 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 changes only impact the implementation of the affected stations' emergency plans by relocating their onsite or near-site EOFs to the established corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changing the required response time of responders who supplement the onsite staff, and decreasing the frequency of augmentation drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. It has been evaluated and determined that the change in response time does not significantly affect the ability to supplement the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows that the onsite staff can acceptably respond to an event for longer than the requested time for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed changes will not change the design function or operation of SSCs. The changes do not impact the accident analysis. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. 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 changes only impacts the implementation of the affected stations' emergency plans by relocating their onsite or near-site EOFs to the established corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changing the required response time of responders who supplement the onsite staff, and decreasing the frequency of augmentation drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. It has been evaluated and determined that the change in response time does not significantly affect the ability to supplement the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows that the onsite staff can acceptably respond to an event for longer than the requested time for augmented staff to arrive. Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are associated with the emergency plans and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected. The emergency plans will continue to provide the necessary response staff for emergencies as demonstrated by staffing and functional analyses including the necessary timeliness of performing major tasks for the functional areas of the emergency plans. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2), Darlington County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: April 24, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16116A033. Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 2, ``Relocated TS Parameters to COLR.'' Based on TSTF-339, the proposed amendment would relocate reactor coolant system (RCS)-related cycle- specific parameters and core safety limits from the technical specifications (TSs) to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). 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 relocation of RCS-related cycle-specific parameter limits from the TS to the COLR proposed by this amendment request does not result in the alteration of the design, material, or construction standards that were applicable prior to the change. The proposed change will not result in the modification of any system interface that would increase the likelihood of an accident since these events are independent of the proposed change. The proposed amendment will not change, degrade, or prevent actions, or alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in 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. There are no new accident causal mechanisms created as a result of NRC approval of this amendment request. No changes are being made to the facility which would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. This amendment request does not impact any plant systems that are accident initiators. 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 margin of safety? Response: No. Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant reduction in the [[Page 43652]] margin of safety. Previously approved methodologies will continue to be used in the determination of cycle-specific core operating limits that are present in the COLR. Additionally, previously approved RCS minimum total flow rates for HBRSEP2 are retained in the TS to assure that lower flow rates will not be used without prior NRC approval. Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed license amendment request does not impact any safety margins and will not result in a reduction in margin with respect to plant 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 Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Robert G. Schaaf. Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16110A266. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) requirements for snubbers. The licensee proposed to revise the TSs to conform to the licensee's Snubber Testing Program. The proposed changes include additions to, deletions from, and conforming administrative changes to the TSs. 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 would revise TS SR [Surveillance Requirement] 4.7.6 to conform the TS to the revised surveillance program for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The proposed change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and components to perform their design functions therefore, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 changes ensure snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney-- Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: May 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A171. Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and conforming changes to the combined license Appendix C, as well as conforming changes to the plant-specific Tier 1 information, to ensure that the design bases Tier 2 information conforms with the originally certified design. The licensee stated in its application that the changes are editorial, and with one exception, bring the plant-specific Tier 1 and Combined License (COL) Appendix C into alignment with the information contained in plant-specific Tier 2. In addition, the licensee requested a change to COL License Condition 2.D(12)(f)1 to correct a reference to a seismic interaction review discussed in the AP1000 design certification document, Revision 19, Section 3.7.5.3. 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 amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one COL paragraph 2.D change, do not involve a technical change, (e.g., there is no design parameter or requirement, calculation, analysis, function or qualification change). No structure, system, component design or function would be affected. No design or safety analysis would be affected. The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiating event or component failure, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. No function used to mitigate a radioactive material release and no radioactive material release source term is involved, thus the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of [[Page 43653]] accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one COL paragraph 2.D change, would not affect the design or function of any structure, system, component (SSC), but will instead provide consistency between the SSC designs and functions currently presented in the UFSAR and the Tier 1 information. The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode, fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material release. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 update, along with one COL paragraph 2.D change, is non-technical, thus would not affect any design parameter, function or analysis. There would be no change to an existing design basis, design function, regulatory criterion, or analysis. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/ criterion is involved. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: May 12, 2016. A publicly-available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A382. Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and changes to the combined license Appendix A Technical Specifications to ensure that the listed minimum volume of the passive core cooling system core makeup tanks are aligned with the current inspections tests analyses and acceptance criteria and the relevant safety analysis. 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 activity would revise the minimum CMT [Core Makeup Tank] volume in the COL [combined operating license] Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements. Because the new minimum volume is bounded by the current analyses, the proposed activity does not alter the design of an accident initiating component or system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed activity does not involve other safety-related equipment or radioactive material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity does not affect an accident mitigation function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety analyses are affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by the changes. The changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding failures. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety analyses are affected. No system design function or equipment is altered by this activity, and the proposed changes do not alter any design code, safety classification, or design margin. No safety analysis or design basis limit is involved with the requested change, and consequently, no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16139A796. Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to the technical specifications (TS) and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information. Specifically, the proposed departures consist of changes to the TS and UFSAR to revise the minimum volume of the passive core cooling system core makeup tanks. 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 activity would revise the minimum CMT [core makeup tank] volume in the COL [combined operating license] Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements. Because the new minimum volume is bounded by the current analyses, the proposed activity does not alter the design of an accident initiating component or system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed activity does not involve other safety-related equipment or radioactive material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity does not affect an accident mitigation function. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. [[Page 43654]] 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 activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety analyses are affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by the changes. The changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding failures. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety analyses are affected. No system design function or equipment is altered by this activity, and the proposed changes do not alter any design code, safety classification, or design margin. No safety analysis or design basis limit is involved with the requested change, and consequently, no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments. 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 Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: July 17, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments correct a usage problem with recently issued Amendment Nos. 382, 384, and 383 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13231A013), which precludes Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' Condition H, from being used as planned. The change revises the note to TS 3.8.1, Required Actions L.1, L.2, and L.3 to delete the 12-hour time limitation when the second Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is made inoperable for the purpose of restoring the KHU undergoing maintenance to OPERABLE status. Deletion of the 12-hour time limitation allows the use of the full 60-hour Completion Time of Required Action H.2 when the unit(s) have been in Condition C for greater than 72 hours, and both units are made inoperable for the purpose of restoring the KHU undergoing maintenance to OPERABLE status. Date of issuance: June 6, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 400 (Unit 1), 402 (Unit 2), and 401 (Unit 3). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16138A332; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69710). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the revised schedule for full implementation of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) for Milestone 8 by extending the date from June 30, 2016, to December 15, 2017, and revised paragraphs 3.B and 3.G of Facility Operating License No. DPR-35 for PNPS to incorporate the revised CSP implementation schedule. Date of issuance: June 6, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. Amendment No.: 244. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16082A460; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65812). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. [[Page 43655]] FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date of application for amendments: November 19, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 22, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed the BVPS and DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the license amendments revised TS 5.3.1, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,'' by incorporating an exception to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N18.1-1971, ``Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,'' such that licensed operators are only required to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR part 55, ``Operators' Licenses.'' Date of issuance: June 7, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 297 and 185 for BVPS, Units 1 and 2, and 292 for DBNPS, Unit 1. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16040A084. Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, and NPF-3: The amendments revised the TSs and Renewed Facility Operating Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR 2918). The supplemental letter dated March 22, 2016, contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated June 7, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell County, Texas Date of amendment request: June 30, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the current emergency action level scheme for CPNPP 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: June 14, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 270 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 166 (Unit 1) and 166 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A056; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses to authorize revision to the CPNPP Emergency Plan. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR 48923), and corrected on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The supplemental letters dated January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50- 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016; March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised surveillance requirements (SRs) related to gas accumulation for the emergency core cooling system and added new SRs related to gas accumulation for the residual heat removal and containment spray systems, consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF- 523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.'' Date of issuance: June 16, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 217 (Unit 1) and 205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A406; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61484). The supplemental letters dated December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016; March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) to provide a short Completion Time to restore an inoperable system for conditions under which the existing TSs require a plant shutdown. The amendment is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, ``Revise or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] 3.0.3--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiatives 6b & 6c,'' with certain plant-specific administrative variations. Date of issuance: June 8, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16139A804; 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 Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73239). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. [[Page 43656]] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50- 425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: July 18, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated February 27, 2015, and May 2, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised 22 Technical Specifications (TSs) by adopting multiple previously NRC- approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers. One proposed change is not included in this license amendment and will be addressed by further correspondence. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) stated that these TSTF Travelers are generic changes chosen to increase the consistency between the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant TSs, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse plants (NUREG-1431), and the TSs of the other plants in the SNC fleet. Date of issuance: June 9, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 180 (Unit 1) and 161 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15132A569; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11480). The supplemental letters dated February 27, 2015, and May 2, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposal 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 June 9, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request: April 13, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler-432, Revision 1, ``Change in Technical Specifications End States (WCAP-16294),'' dated November 29, 2010. Date of issuance: June 10, 2016. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 202 (Unit 1) and 198 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15289A227; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30102). The supplemental letters dated September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2016-15659 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![43646 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
regulations, and orders of the NRC now theft, diversion, or loss. Based on the NUCLEAR REGULATORY
or hereafter in effect. The facility information provided, no new accident COMMISSION
consists of two pressurized-water precursors are created by the
[NRC–2016–0127]
reactors located in Mecklenburg County, description of actions the licensee has
North Carolina. provided concerning the physical Biweekly Notice; Applications and
II. Request/Action inventory for the incore nuclear Amendments to Facility Operating
detectors. Thus, the probability of Licenses and Combined Licenses
The regulation in 10 CFR 74.19,
postulated accidents is not increased. Involving No Significant Hazards
‘‘Recordkeeping,’’ identifies
Also, the consequences of postulated Considerations
recordkeeping requirements applicable
accidents are not increased. Therefore,
to special nuclear material (SNM), and AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
10 CFR 74.19(c) requires, in part, that, there is no undue risk to public health
Commission.
‘‘each licensee who is authorized to and safety.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
possess special nuclear material, at any The Exemption Is Consistent With the
one time and site location, in a quantity Common Defense and Security SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2)
greater than 350 grams of contained of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
uranium-235, uranium-233, or The proposed exemption would allow amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
plutonium, or any combination thereof, the licensee to address the physical Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
shall conduct a physical inventory of all inventory of the non-fuel SNM. The publishing this regular biweekly notice.
special nuclear material in its licensee indicated that the overall The Act requires the Commission to
possession under license at intervals not alternative approach will continue to publish notice of any amendments
to exceed 12 months.’’ meet the intent of the physical issued, or proposed to be issued, and
The licensee requested an exemption inventory requirements of 10 CFR grants the Commission the authority to
from certain recordkeeping 74.19(c). Therefore, the common issue and make immediately effective
requirements in 10 CFR 74.19(c). The defense and security are not impacted any amendment to an operating license
exemption would allow the licensee to by this exemption. or combined license, as applicable,
seek relief from the physical inventory upon a determination by the
requirements only for movable incore IV. Conclusion Commission that such amendment
nuclear detectors that have been involves no significant hazards
removed from service and stored in a Accordingly, the Commission has consideration, notwithstanding the
location that is not readily accessible determined that pursuant to 10 CFR pendency before the Commission of a
and is subject to security modifications. 74.7, the exemption is authorized by request for a hearing from any person.
The purpose of this request for law, will not present an undue risk to This biweekly notice includes all
exemption is to allow an alternative to the public health and safety, and is notices of amendments issued, or
the physical inventory-taking practices consistent with the common defense proposed to be issued from June 7, 2016,
for these non-fuel SNM incore detectors. and security. Therefore, the Commission to June 20, 2016. The last biweekly
hereby grants Duke Energy Carolinas, notice was published on June 21, 2016.
III. Discussion
LLC an exemption from the physical DATES: Comments must be filed by
Pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7, ‘‘Specific inventory requirements of 10 CFR August 4, 2016. A request for a hearing
exemptions,’’ the Commission may, 74.19(c) for McGuire. must be filed by September 6, 2016.
upon application of any interested
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ‘‘Finding of ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
person or upon its own initiative, grant
no significant impact,’’ the Commission by any of the following methods (unless
exemptions from the requirements of 10
has determined that the granting of this this document describes a different
CFR part 74 when the exemptions are
exemption will not have a significant method for submitting comments on a
authorized by law and will not endanger
effect on the quality of the human specific subject):
life or property or the common defense
environment as published in the • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
and security, and are otherwise in the
Federal Register on March 8, 2016 (81 http://www.regulations.gov and search
public interest.
FR 12132). for Docket ID NRC–2016–0127. Address
The Exemption Is Authorized by Law questions about NRC dockets to Carol
The exemption is effective upon Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
This exemption allows the licensee to issuance.
have an alternative to the physical email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
inventory requirements of 10 CFR Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day technical questions, contact the
74.19(c) only for movable incore nuclear of June, 2016. individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
detectors that have been removed from For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
service. The NRC staff has determined document.
Anne T. Boland,
that granting the licensee’s proposed • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7 will Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
not result in a violation of the Atomic OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear
Regulation.
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Regulatory Commission, Washington,
[FR Doc. 2016–15868 Filed 7–1–16; 8:45 am]
Commission’s regulations. Therefore, DC 20555–0001.
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P For additional direction on obtaining
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
the exemption is authorized by law.
information and submitting comments,
The Exemption Presents No Undue Risk see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
to Public Health and Safety Submitting Comments’’ in the
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
74.19(c) is to ensure SNM is properly this document.
accounted for, appropriately secured, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
and that authorities are informed of any Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM 05JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_43774/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices 43649
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing the presiding officer subsequently and the removal of an expired one-time
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern determines that the reason for granting Note for Required Action to restore
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of the exemption from use of E-Filing no Diesel Generator to OPERABLE status
a transmission, the E-Filing system longer exists. for TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating.’’
time-stamps the document and sends Documents submitted in adjudicatory Basis for proposed no significant
the submitter an email notice proceedings will appear in the NRC’s hazards consideration determination:
confirming receipt of the document. The electronic hearing docket which is As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
E-Filing system also distributes an email available to the public at http:// licensee has provided its analysis of the
notice that provides access to the ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded issue of no significant hazards
document to the NRC’s Office of the pursuant to an order of the Commission, consideration, which is presented
General Counsel and any others who or the presiding officer. Participants are below:
have advised the Office of the Secretary requested not to include personal
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
that they wish to participate in the privacy information, such as social
a significant increase in the probability or
proceeding, so that the filer need not security numbers, home addresses, or consequences of an accident previously
serve the documents on those home phone numbers in their filings, evaluated?
participants separately. Therefore, unless an NRC regulation or other law Response: No.
applicants and other participants (or requires submission of such This LAR [license amendment request]
their counsel or representative) must information. However, in some proposes administrative non-technical
apply for and receive a digital ID instances, a request to intervene will changes only. These proposed changes do not
certificate before a hearing request/ require including information on local adversely affect accident initiators or
petition to intervene is filed so that they residence in order to demonstrate a precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
can obtain access to the document via proximity assertion of interest in the conditions, or configurations of the facility.
The proposed changes do not alter or prevent
the E-Filing system. proceeding. With respect to copyrighted
the ability of structures, systems and
A person filing electronically using works, except for limited excerpts that components (SSCs) to perform their intended
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system serve the purpose of the adjudicatory function to mitigate the consequences of an
may seek assistance by contacting the filings and would constitute a Fair Use initiating event within the assumed
NRC Meta System Help Desk through application, participants are requested acceptance limits.
the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the not to include copyrighted materials in Given the above discussion, it is concluded
NRC’s public Web site at http:// their submission. the proposed amendment does not
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- Petitions for leave to intervene must significantly increase the probability or
submittals.html, by email to be filed no later than 60 days from the consequences of an accident previously
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- date of publication of this notice. evaluated.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 2. Does the proposed amendment create
free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
the possibility of a new or different kind of
Meta System Help Desk is available to intervene, and motions for leave to accident from any accident previously
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern file new or amended contentions that evaluated?
Time, Monday through Friday, are filed after the 60-day deadline will Response: No.
excluding government holidays. not be entertained absent a This LAR proposes administrative non-
Participants who believe that they determination by the presiding officer technical changes only. The proposed
have a good cause for not submitting that the filing demonstrates good cause changes will not alter the design
documents electronically must file an by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR requirements of any Structure, System or
exemption request, in accordance with 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). Component (SSC) or its function during
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper For further details with respect to accident conditions. No new or different
filing requesting authorization to these license amendment applications, accidents result from the proposed changes.
The changes do not involve a physical
continue to submit documents in paper see the application for amendment, alteration of the plant or any changes in
format. Such filings must be submitted which is available for public inspection methods governing normal plant operation.
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For The changes do not alter assumptions made
Office of the Secretary of the additional direction on accessing in the safety analysis.
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory information related to this document, Given the above discussion, it is concluded
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and the proposed amendment does not create the
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Submitting Comments’’ section of this possibility of a new or different kind of
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, document. accident from any accident previously
express mail, or expedited delivery evaluated.
service to the Office of the Secretary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Response: No.
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, This LAR proposes administrative non-
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
technical changes only. The proposed
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Date of amendment request: May 5, changes do not alter the manner in which
Participants filing a document in this 2016. A publicly available version is in safety limits, limiting safety system settings
manner are responsible for serving the ADAMS under Accession No. or limiting conditions for operation are
document on all other participants. ML16134A068. determined. The safety analysis acceptance
Filing is considered complete by first- Description of amendment request: criteria are not affected by these changes. The
class mail as of the time of deposit in The amendments would modify proposed changes will not result in plant
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or Technical Specifications (TSs) by the operation in a configuration outside the
removal of Note (c), which is no longer design basis. The proposed changes do not
expedited delivery service upon
adversely affect systems that respond to
depositing the document with the applicable from TS Table 3.3.2–1, safely shutdown the plant and to maintain
provider of the service. A presiding ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
officer, having granted an exemption System Instrumentation,’’ Function 6.f, Given the above discussion, it is concluded
request from using E-Filing, may require ‘‘Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Suction the proposed amendment does not involve a
a participant or party to use E-Filing if Transfer on Suction Pressure—Low,’’ significant reduction in the margin of safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM 05JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_43774/page/4.svg)
![43650 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
The NRC staff has reviewed the to use of the 55-day Completion Time of 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with
licensee’s analysis and, based on this Required Action C.2.2.5). The temporary 55- restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.
review, it appears that the three day Completion Time will decrease the During the time period that one KHU is
likelihood of an unplanned forced shutdown inoperable, the redundancy requirement for
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are of all three Oconee Units and the potential the emergency power source will be fulfilled
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff safety consequences and operational risks by an LCT. Compensatory measures
proposes to determine that the associated with that action. Avoiding this previously specified will be in place to
amendment request involves no risk offsets the risks associated with having minimize electrical power system
significant hazards consideration. a design basis event during the temporary 55- vulnerabilities.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, day completion time for having one KHU The proposed TS change does not involve:
Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy inoperable. (1) a physical alteration of the Oconee Units;
Corporation, 526 South Church Street— The temporary addition of the 55-day (2) the installation of new or different
Completion Time does not involve: (1) A equipment; (3) operating any installed
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2)
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. equipment in a new or different manner; (4)
the installation of new or different a change to any set points for parameters
Markley. equipment; (3) operating any installed which initiate protective or mitigation action;
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket equipment in a new or different manner; or or (5) any impact on the fission product
(4) a change to any set points for parameters barriers or safety limits.
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, which initiate protective or mitigation action.
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and Therefore, this request does not involve a
There is no adverse impact on containment significant reduction in a margin of safety.
3, Oconee County, South Carolina integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel
Date of amendment request: February design, filtration systems, main steam relief The NRC staff has reviewed the
26, 2016. A publicly-available version is valve set points, or radwaste systems. No licensee’s analysis and, based on this
new radiological release pathways are review, it appears that the three
in ADAMS under Accession No. created.
ML16064A020. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
The consequences of an event occurring
Description of amendment request: during the temporary 55-day Completion satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
The amendments would revise Time are the same as those that would occur proposes to determine that the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the during the existing Completion Time. Duke amendment request involves no
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and Energy reviewed the Probabilistic Risk significant hazards consideration.
3 (Oconee). Specifically, the license Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols,
amendment request (LAR) would revise concerning the configuration of [Oconee] Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy
with one KHU. The results of the risk Corporation, 526 S. Church St.—EC07H,
TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC [Alternating Current] analysis show a risk improvement if no
Sources—Operating,’’ Required Action Charlotte, NC 28202.
maintenance is performed on the SSF, EFW
C.2.2.5, to allow each Keowee System and AC Power System. The results of NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Hydroelectric Unit to be taken out of the risk analysis show a small risk increase Markley.
service for up to 55 days on a one-time using the average nominal maintenance Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos.
basis for the purpose of generator stator unavailability values for the SSF, EFW
System and AC Power System.
50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam
replacement, subject to the Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP),
By limiting maintenance, the risk results
implementation of specified Brunswick County, North Carolina
are expected to be between these two
contingency measures outlined in the extremes (i.e., small risk impact).
LAR. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Therefore, the probability or consequences
Basis for proposed no significant Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba
of an accident previously evaluated is not
hazards consideration determination: significantly increased. Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 2. Does the proposed amendment create County, South Carolina
licensee has provided its analysis of the the possibility of a new or different kind of Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
issue of no significant hazards accident from any accident previously 50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
consideration, which is presented evaluated?
Response: No.
Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County,
below, with NRC edits in square North Carolina
This change involves the temporary
brackets: addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
1. Does the proposed amendment involve 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire
a significant increase in the probability or restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
consequences of an accident previously During the time period that one KHU is
evaluated? inoperable, the redundancy requirement for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Response: No. the emergency power source will be fulfilled Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
This change involves the temporary by an LCT. Compensatory measures Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
addition of a 55-day Completion Time for previously specified will be in place to Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required minimize electrical power system
Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring vulnerabilities. 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
compliance with TS Limiting Condition for The temporary 55-day Completion Time Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that does not involve a physical effect on the 50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
one Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington
inoperable for [greater than] 72 hours, a Lee of an Oconee Unit trip or reactivity
excursion. No new failure modes or credible
County, South Carolina
Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing
both standby buses, two offsite power accident scenarios are postulated from this Date of amendment request: April 29,
sources will be maintained available, and activity. 2016. A publicly-available version is in
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
maintenance on electrical distribution Therefore, the possibility of a new or ADAMS under Accession No.
systems will not be performed unless different kind of accident from any kind of ML16120A076.
necessary. In addition, risk significant accident previously evaluated is not created.
systems (Emergency Feedwater System, 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
Description of amendment request:
Protected Service Water System, and Standby a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The amendments would (1) consolidate
Shutdown Facility) will be verified operable Response: No. the Emergency Operations Facilities
(meeting LCO requirements) within 72 hours This change involves the temporary (EOFs) for BSEP, HNP, and RNP with
of entering TS 3.8.1 Condition C (i.e., prior addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS the Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM 05JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_43774/page/5.svg)
![43652 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
margin of safety. Previously approved examination, testing and service life South Carolina Electric and Gas
methodologies will continue to be used in monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR Company and South Carolina Public
the determination of cycle-specific core 50.55a or authorized alternatives. The Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027
operating limits that are present in the COLR. proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for
Additionally, previously approved RCS
and 52–028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
inoperable snubbers is administrative in
minimum total flow rates for HBRSEP2 are nature and is required for consistency with
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3,
retained in the TS to assure that lower flow the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The Fairfield County, South Carolina
rates will not be used without prior NRC proposed change does not adversely affect Date of amendment request: May 16,
approval. Based on the above, it is concluded plant operations, design functions or 2016. A publicly-available version is in
that the proposed license amendment request analyses that verify the capability of systems,
does not impact any safety margins and will ADAMS under Accession No.
structures, and components to perform their ML16137A171.
not result in a reduction in margin with design functions therefore, the consequences
respect to plant safety. Description of amendment request:
of accidents previously evaluated are not
The proposed changes, if approved for
The NRC staff has reviewed the significantly increased.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change the VCSNS, involve departures from
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
does not involve a significant increase in the incorporated plant-specific Tier 2
review, it appears that the three
probability or consequences of an accident Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
previously evaluated. (UFSAR) information and conforming
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
2. Does the proposed change create the changes to the combined license
proposes to determine that the
possibility of a new or different kind of Appendix C, as well as conforming
amendment request involves no accident from any accident previously changes to the plant-specific Tier 1
significant hazards consideration. evaluated?
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, information, to ensure that the design
Response: No. bases Tier 2 information conforms with
Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy The proposed changes do not involve any
Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, the originally certified design. The
physical alteration of plant equipment. The
Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC proposed changes do not alter the method by
licensee stated in its application that the
28202. which any safety-related system performs its changes are editorial, and with one
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Robert G. function. As such, no new or different types exception, bring the plant-specific Tier
Schaaf. of equipment will be installed, and the basic 1 and Combined License (COL)
operation of installed equipment is Appendix C into alignment with the
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket unchanged. The methods governing plant information contained in plant-specific
Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point operation and testing remain consistent with Tier 2. In addition, the licensee
Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, current safety analysis assumptions. requested a change to COL License
Miami-Dade County, Florida Therefore, it is concluded that this change Condition 2.D(12)(f)1 to correct a
does not create the possibility of a new or
Date of amendment request: April 4, reference to a seismic interaction review
different kind of accident from any accident
2016. A publicly-available version is in previously evaluated.
discussed in the AP1000 design
ADAMS under Accession No. 3. Does the proposed change involve a certification document, Revision 19,
ML16110A266. significant reduction in a margin of safety? Section 3.7.5.3.
Description of amendment request: Response: No. Basis for proposed no significant
The amendments would revise the The proposed changes ensure snubber hazards consideration determination:
Technical Specifications (TS) examination, testing and service life As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
requirements for snubbers. The licensee monitoring will continue to meet the licensee has provided its analysis of the
proposed to revise the TSs to conform requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers issue of no significant hazards
to the licensee’s Snubber Testing will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE consideration, which is presented
Program. The proposed changes include by performance of a program for below:
additions to, deletions from, and examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
conforming administrative changes to a significant increase in the probability or
50.55a or authorized alternatives.
the TSs. The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 consequences of an accident previously
Basis for proposed no significant Action for inoperable snubbers is evaluated?
hazards consideration determination: administrative in nature and is required for Response: No.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the consistency with the proposed change to TS The proposed consistency and editorial
licensee has provided its analysis of the SR 4.7.6. COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)
issue of no significant hazards and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one
Therefore, it is concluded that the
COL paragraph 2.D change, do not involve a
consideration, which is presented proposed change does not involve a
technical change, (e.g., there is no design
below: significant reduction in a margin of safety.
parameter or requirement, calculation,
1. Does the proposed change involve a analysis, function or qualification change).
The NRC staff has reviewed the No structure, system, component design or
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
licensee’s analysis and, based on this function would be affected. No design or
evaluated? review, it appears that the three safety analysis would be affected. The
Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are proposed changes do not affect any accident
The proposed changes would revise TS SR satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff initiating event or component failure, thus
[Surveillance Requirement] 4.7.6 to conform proposes to determine that the the probabilities of the accidents previously
the TS to the revised surveillance program amendment request involves no evaluated are not affected. No function used
for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing significant hazards consideration. to mitigate a radioactive material release and
and service life monitoring will continue to no radioactive material release source term is
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Attorney for licensee: William S. involved, thus the radiological releases in the
Snubber examination, testing and service Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, accident analyses are not affected.
life monitoring is not an initiator of any Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Therefore, the proposed changes do not
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously Beach, FL 33408–0420. probability or consequences of an accident
evaluated is not significantly increased. previously evaluated.
Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 2. Does the proposed amendment create
OPERABLE by performance of a program for Beasley. the possibility of a new or different kind of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM 05JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_43774/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices 43653
accident from any accident previously Basis for proposed no significant Therefore, the proposed amendment does
evaluated? hazards consideration determination: not involve a significant reduction in a
Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the margin of safety.
The proposed consistency and editorial
licensee has provided its analysis of the The NRC staff has reviewed the
COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)
and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one issue of no significant hazards licensee’s analysis and, based on this
COL paragraph 2.D change, would not affect consideration, which is presented review, it appears that the three
the design or function of any structure, below: standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
system, component (SSC), but will instead 1. Does the proposed amendment involve satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
provide consistency between the SSC designs a significant increase in the probability or proposes to determine that the
and functions currently presented in the consequences of an accident previously amendment request involves no
UFSAR and the Tier 1 information. The evaluated? significant hazards consideration.
proposed changes would not introduce a new Response: No. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M.
failure mode, fault or sequence of events that The proposed activity would revise the
could result in a radioactive material release.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,
minimum CMT [Core Makeup Tank] volume 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Therefore, the proposed changes do not in the COL [combined operating license]
create the possibility of a new or different Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and
Washington, DC 20004–2514.
kind of accident from any accident UFSAR information to be consistent with the NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer
previously evaluated. plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C Dixon-Herrity.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve requirements. Because the new minimum
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
volume is bounded by the current analyses,
Response: No. the proposed activity does not alter the Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
The proposed consistency and editorial design of an accident initiating component or Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
and involved Tier 2 update, along with one previously evaluated are not affected. The Date of amendment request: May 18,
COL paragraph 2.D change, is non-technical, proposed activity does not involve other
thus would not affect any design parameter, 2016. A publicly-available version is in
safety-related equipment or radioactive
function or analysis. There would be no material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity ADAMS under Accession No.
change to an existing design basis, design does not affect an accident mitigation ML16139A796.
function, regulatory criterion, or analysis. No function. Description of amendment request:
safety analysis or design basis acceptance Therefore, the proposed changes do not The amendment request proposes
limit/criterion is involved. Therefore, the involve a significant increase in the changes to the technical specifications
proposed amendment does not involve a probability or consequences of an accident (TS) and Updated Final Safety Analysis
significant reduction in a margin of safety. previously evaluated. Report (UFSAR) in the form of
2. Does the proposed amendment create
The NRC staff has reviewed the departures from the incorporated plant-
the possibility of a new or different kind of
licensee’s analysis and, based on this accident from any accident previously specific Design Control Document Tier
review, it appears that the three evaluated? 2 information. Specifically, the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Response: No. proposed departures consist of changes
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The proposed activity would revise the to the TS and UFSAR to revise the
proposes to determine that the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix minimum volume of the passive core
amendment request involves no A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR cooling system core makeup tanks.
information to be consistent with the plant- Basis for proposed no significant
significant hazards consideration.
specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. hazards consideration determination:
requirements. No results or conclusions of
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, any design or safety analyses are affected. No As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., system or design function or equipment licensee has provided its analysis of the
Washington, DC 20004–2514. qualification is affected by the changes. The issue of no significant hazards
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer changes do not result in a new failure mode, consideration, which is presented
Dixon-Herrity. malfunction or sequence of events that could below:
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This
South Carolina Electric and Gas activity does not allow for a new fission 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– product release path, result in a new fission a significant increase in the probability or
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station product barrier failure mode, or create a new consequences of an accident previously
sequence of events that results in significant evaluated?
(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield Response: No.
County, South Carolina fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not The proposed activity would revise the
Date of amendment request: May 12, create the possibility of a new or different minimum CMT [core makeup tank] volume
2016. A publicly-available version is kind of accident from any accident in the COL [combined operating license]
available in ADAMS under Accession previously evaluated. Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and
3. Does the proposed amendment involve UFSAR information to be consistent with the
No. ML16133A382. plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
Description of amendment request: a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No. requirements. Because the new minimum
The proposed changes, if approved for volume is bounded by the current analyses,
The proposed activity would revise the
the VCSNS, involve departures from minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix the proposed activity does not alter the
incorporated plant-specific Tier 2 A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR design of an accident initiating component or
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report information to be consistent with the plant- system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident
(UFSAR) information and changes to the specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C previously evaluated are not affected. The
combined license Appendix A requirements. No results or conclusions of proposed activity does not involve other
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Technical Specifications to ensure that any design or safety analyses are affected. No safety-related equipment or radioactive
system design function or equipment is material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity
the listed minimum volume of the
altered by this activity, and the proposed does not affect an accident mitigation
passive core cooling system core changes do not alter any design code, safety function.
makeup tanks are aligned with the classification, or design margin. No safety Therefore, the proposed amendment does
current inspections tests analyses and analysis or design basis limit is involved not involve a significant increase in the
acceptance criteria and the relevant with the requested change, and consequently, probability or consequences of an accident
safety analysis. no margin of safety is reduced. previously evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM 05JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_43774/page/8.svg)
![43654 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
2. Does the proposed amendment create The Commission has made appropriate the KHU undergoing maintenance to
the possibility of a new or different kind of findings as required by the Act and the OPERABLE status.
accident from any accident previously Commission’s rules and regulations in
evaluated? Date of issuance: June 6, 2016.
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
Response: No. Effective date: As of the date of
The proposed activity would revise the the license amendments.
A notice of consideration of issuance issuance and shall be implemented
minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
of amendment to facility operating within 60 days of issuance.
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plant- license or combined license, as Amendment Nos.: 400 (Unit 1), 402
specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C applicable, proposed no significant (Unit 2), and 401 (Unit 3). A publicly-
requirements. No results or conclusions of hazards consideration determination, available version is in ADAMS under
any design or safety analyses are affected. No and opportunity for a hearing in Accession No. ML16138A332;
system or design function or equipment
qualification is affected by the changes. The
connection with these actions, was documents related to these amendments
changes do not result in a new failure mode, published in the Federal Register as are listed in the Safety Evaluation
malfunction or sequence of events that could indicated. enclosed with the amendments.
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This Unless otherwise indicated, the Renewed Facility Operating License
activity does not allow for a new fission Commission has determined that these Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: The
product release path, result in a new fission amendments satisfy the criteria for
product barrier failure mode, or create a new
amendments revised the Renewed
categorical exclusion in accordance Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
sequence of events that results in significant
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
fuel cladding failures. Date of initial notice in Federal
Therefore, the proposed amendment does to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR
not create the possibility of a new or different 69710).
kind of accident from any accident assessment need be prepared for these
previously evaluated. amendments. If the Commission has The Commission’s related evaluation
3. Does the proposed amendment involve prepared an environmental assessment of the amendments is contained in a
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? under the special circumstances Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
Response: No. provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
The proposed activity would revise the No significant hazards consideration
made a determination based on that comments received: No.
minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
information to be consistent with the plant-
specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C action, see (1) the applications for Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear
requirements. No results or conclusions of amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth
any design or safety analyses are affected. No the Commission’s related letter, safety County, Massachusetts
system design function or equipment is evaluation, and/or environmental
altered by this activity, and the proposed Date of amendment request: July 15,
assessment, as indicated. All of these
changes do not alter any design code, safety 2015.
items can be accessed as described in
classification, or design margin. No safety Brief description of amendment: The
analysis or design basis limit is involved
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this amendment approved the revised
with the requested change, and consequently,
document. schedule for full implementation of the
no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not involve a Cyber Security Plan (CSP) for Milestone
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 8 by extending the date from June 30,
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 2016, to December 15, 2017, and revised
The NRC staff has reviewed the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and paragraphs 3.B and 3.G of Facility
licensee’s analysis and, based on this 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Operating License No. DPR–35 for PNPS
review, it appears that the three to incorporate the revised CSP
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Date of amendment request: July 17,
2015. implementation schedule.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the Brief description of amendments: The Date of issuance: June 6, 2016.
amendment request involves no amendments correct a usage problem Effective date: As of the date of
significant hazards consideration. with recently issued Amendment Nos. issuance and shall be implemented
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford 382, 384, and 383 (ADAMS Accession within 30 days.
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 No. ML13231A013), which precludes
Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Amendment No.: 244. A publicly-
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC available version is in ADAMS under
35203–2015.
[Alternating Current] Sources— Accession No. ML16082A460;
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer
Operating,’’ Condition H, from being documents related to this amendment
Dixon-Herrity.
used as planned. The change revises the are listed in the Safety Evaluation
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments note to TS 3.8.1, Required Actions L.1, enclosed with the amendment.
to Facility Operating Licenses and L.2, and L.3 to delete the 12-hour time Facility Operating License No. DPR–
Combined Licenses limitation when the second Keowee 35: The amendment revised the
During the period since publication of Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is made Renewed Facility Operating License.
the last biweekly notice, the inoperable for the purpose of restoring Date of initial notice in Federal
Commission has issued the following the KHU undergoing maintenance to
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR
amendments. The Commission has OPERABLE status. Deletion of the 12- 65812).
determined for each of these hour time limitation allows the use of
amendments that the application the full 60-hour Completion Time of The Commission’s related evaluation
complies with the standards and Required Action H.2 when the unit(s) of the amendment is contained in a
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act have been in Condition C for greater Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the than 72 hours, and both units are made No significant hazards consideration
Commission’s rules and regulations. inoperable for the purpose of restoring comments received: No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM 05JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_43774/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices 43655
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
Company, Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50– November 2012. amendments.
412, Beaver Valley Power Station Date of issuance: June 14, 2016. Renewed Facility Operating License
(BVPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver Effective date: As of the date of Nos. DPR–42 and DPR–60: The
County, Pennsylvania Docket No. 50– issuance and shall be implemented amendments revised the Renewed
346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station within 270 days from the date of Facility Operating Licenses and
(DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, issuance. Technical Specifications.
Ohio Amendment Nos.: 166 (Unit 1) and Date of initial notice in Federal
166 (Unit 2). A publicly-available Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
Date of application for amendments: version is in ADAMS under Accession
November 19, 2015, as supplemented by 61484). The supplemental letters dated
No. ML16137A056; documents related December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016;
letter dated March 22, 2016. to these amendments are listed in the
Brief description of amendments: The March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016,
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the provided additional information that
amendments changed the BVPS and amendments.
DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs). clarified the application, did not expand
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– the scope of the application as originally
Specifically, the license amendments 87 and NPF–89: The amendments
revised TS 5.3.1, ‘‘Unit Staff noticed, and did not change the staff’s
revised the Facility Operating Licenses original proposed no significant hazards
Qualifications,’’ by incorporating an to authorize revision to the CPNPP
exception to American National consideration determination as
Emergency Plan. published in the Federal Register.
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Date of initial notice in Federal
N18.1–1971, ‘‘Selection and Training of The Commission’s related evaluation
Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR of the amendments is contained in a
Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,’’ such 48923), and corrected on August 20,
that licensed operators are only required Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2016.
2015 (80 FR 50663). The supplemental No significant hazards consideration
to comply with the requirements of 10 letters dated January 27, 2016, and
CFR part 55, ‘‘Operators’ Licenses.’’ comments received: No.
March 3, 2016, provided additional
Date of issuance: June 7, 2016. information that clarified the Omaha Public Power District, Docket
Effective date: As of the date of application, did not expand the scope of No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
issuance and shall be implemented the application as originally noticed, No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
within 90 days from the date of and did not change the staff’s original
issuance. Date of amendment request:
proposed no significant hazards September 11, 2015.
Amendment Nos.: 297 and 185 for consideration determination as
BVPS, Units 1 and 2, and 292 for Brief description of amendment: The
published in the Federal Register. amendment revised the Technical
DBNPS, Unit 1. A publicly-available The Commission’s related evaluation
version is in ADAMS under Accession Specifications (TSs) to provide a short
of the amendments is contained in a Completion Time to restore an
No. ML16040A084. Documents related Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2016.
to these amendments are listed in the inoperable system for conditions under
No significant hazards consideration
Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the which the existing TSs require a plant
comments received: No.
amendments. shutdown. The amendment is consistent
Renewed Facility Operating License Northern States Power Company— with NRC-approved Technical
Nos. DPR–66, NPF–73, and NPF–3: The Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
amendments revised the TSs and 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Traveler TSTF–426, Revision 5, ‘‘Revise
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses. Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into
Date of initial notice in Federal Minnesota LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]
Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR Date of amendment request: June 29, 3.0.3—RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]
2918). The supplemental letter dated 2015, as supplemented by letters dated Initiatives 6b & 6c,’’ with certain plant-
March 22, 2016, contained clarifying December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016; specific administrative variations.
information and did not change the NRC March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016. Date of issuance: June 8, 2016.
staff’s initial proposed finding of no Brief description of amendments: The Effective date: As of the date of
significant hazards consideration. amendments revised surveillance issuance and shall be implemented
The Commission’s related evaluation requirements (SRs) related to gas within 90 days from the date of
of the amendments is contained in an accumulation for the emergency core issuance.
SE dated June 7, 2016. cooling system and added new SRs Amendment No.: 288. A publicly-
No significant hazards consideration related to gas accumulation for the available version is in ADAMS under
comments received: No. residual heat removal and containment Accession No. ML16139A804;
spray systems, consistent with NRC- documents related to this amendment
Luminant Generation Company LLC, are listed in the Safety Evaluation
approved Technical Specifications Task
Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, enclosed with the amendment.
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Renewed Facility Operating License
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF–
Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell No. DPR–40: The amendment revised
523, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–
County, Texas the Renewed Facility Operating License
01, Managing Gas Accumulation.’’
Date of amendment request: June 30, Date of issuance: June 16, 2016. and TSs.
2015, as supplemented by letters dated Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016. issuance and shall be implemented Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR
Brief description of amendments: The within 90 days of issuance. 73239).
amendments revised the current Amendment Nos.: 217 (Unit 1) and The Commission’s related evaluation
emergency action level scheme for 205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available of the amendment is contained in a
CPNPP to a scheme based on Nuclear version is in ADAMS under Accession Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2016.
Energy Institute (NEI) 99–01, Revision 6, No. ML16133A406; documents related No significant hazards consideration
‘‘Development of Emergency Action to these amendments are listed in the comments received: No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM 05JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_43774/page/10.svg)
![43656 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Standard Technical Specifications proposed amendment would revise
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, Change Traveler-432, Revision 1, Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 ‘‘Change in Technical Specifications ‘‘Fuel Assemblies’’; TS 3.5.1
and 2, Burke County, Georgia End States (WCAP–16294),’’ dated ‘‘Accumulators’’; Surveillance
Date of amendment request: July 18, November 29, 2010. Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4; TS 3.5.4,
2014, as supplemented by letters dated Date of issuance: June 10, 2016. ‘‘Refueling Water Storage Tank’’; and SR
February 27, 2015, and May 2, 2016. Effective date: As of its date of 3.5.4.3, to increase the maximum
Brief description of amendments: The issuance and shall be implemented number of tritium producing burnable
amendments revised 22 Technical within 90 days of issuance. absorber rods (TPBARs) and to delete
Specifications (TSs) by adopting Amendment Nos.: 202 (Unit 1) and outdated information related to the
multiple previously NRC-approved 198 (Unit 2). A publicly-available tritium production program. The NRC
Technical Specifications Task Force version is in ADAMS under Accession staff is issuing an environmental
(TSTF) Travelers. One proposed change No. ML15289A227; documents related assessment (EA) and finding of no
is not included in this license to these amendments are listed in the significant impact (FONSI) associated
amendment and will be addressed by Safety Evaluation enclosed with the with the proposed license amendment.
further correspondence. Southern amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– DATES: The Environmental assessment
Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) referenced in this document is available
stated that these TSTF Travelers are 2 and NPF–8: The amendments revised
the Renewed Facility Operating on July 5, 2016.
generic changes chosen to increase the
consistency between the Vogtle Electric Licenses and Technical Specifications. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
Generating Plant TSs, the Improved Date of initial notice in Federal NRC–2016–0131 when contacting the
Standard Technical Specifications for Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30102). NRC about the availability of
Westinghouse plants (NUREG–1431), The supplemental letters dated information regarding this document.
and the TSs of the other plants in the September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016, You may obtain publicly-available
SNC fleet. provided additional information that information related to this document
Date of issuance: June 9, 2016. clarified the application, did not expand using any of the following methods:
the scope of the application as originally
Effective date: As of the date of • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
issuance and shall be implemented noticed, and did not change the staff’s
http://www.regulations.gov and search
within 120 days of issuance. original proposed no significant hazards
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0131. Address
Amendment Nos.: 180 (Unit 1) and consideration determination as
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
161 (Unit 2). A publicly-available published in the Federal Register.
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
version is in ADAMS under Accession The Commission’s related evaluation
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
No. ML15132A569; documents related of the amendments is contained in a
technical questions, contact the
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 2016.
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the No significant hazards consideration
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
amendments. comments received: No.
document.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd
day of June 2016. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised
Access and Management System
the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
Date of initial notice in Federal Anne T. Boland,
available documents online in the
Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11480). Director, Division of Operating Reactor ADAMS Public Documents collection at
The supplemental letters dated February Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
27, 2015, and May 2, 2016, provided Regulation.
adams.html. To begin the search, select
additional information that clarified the [FR Doc. 2016–15659 Filed 7–1–16; 8:45 am]
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
application, did not expand the scope of BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
the application as originally noticed,
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
and did not change the staff’s original
please contact the NRC’s Public
proposal no significant hazards NUCLEAR REGULATORY
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
consideration determination as COMMISSION
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
published in the Federal Register.
[Docket No. 50–390; NRC–2016–0131] email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the
The Commission’s related evaluation
convenience of the reader, the ADAMS
of the amendments is contained in a Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar accession numbers are provided in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 9, 2016. Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 table in the AVAILABILITY OF
No significant hazards consideration
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory DOCUMENTS section of this document.
comments received: No.
Commission. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, purchase copies of public documents at
Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact; the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Houston County, Alabama issuance.
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Date of amendment request: April 13, SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
2015, as supplemented by letters dated Commission (NRC) is considering the
Robert Schaaf, Office of Nuclear Reactor
September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016. issuance of an amendment to Facility
Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory
Brief description of amendments: The Operating License No. NFP–90, issued
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
amendments consist of changes to the February 7, 1996, and held by the
0001; telephone: 301–415–6020, email:
Technical Specifications consistent with Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the
Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov.
the NRC-approved Technical licensee) for the operation of Watts Bar
Specification Task Force Improved Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM 05JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_43774/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2016-07-01 23:49:54
Document Modified: 2016-07-01 23:49:54
| 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 August 4, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 6, 2016. | |
| Contact | Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 43646 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR