81 FR 54610 - 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 158 (August 16, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 158 (August 16, 2016)
| Page Range | 54610-54622 | |
| FR Document | 2016-19213 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 54610-54622] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-19213] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0161] 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 July 19, 2016, to August 1, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on August 2, 2016. DATES: Comments must be filed by September 15, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 17, 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-2016-0161. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected]. I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0161, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly- [[Page 54611]] 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-2016-0161. 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 this document NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0161, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, 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 submissions into ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period 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 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 to support its position on the issue. 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 [[Page 54612]] 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 the NRC's 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 October 17, 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 10 CFR 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. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled. 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, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E- Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic Submission to the NRC,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 Electronic Filing 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. 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/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must [[Page 54613]] 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 Electronic Filing 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 Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 7 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 stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 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 hearing request and petition to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection 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. Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50- 529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona Date of amendment request: June 29, 2016. Publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16182A171. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, by modifying the TS requirements to address Generic Letter (GL) 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759), as described in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008- 01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds [Surveillance Requirements (SRs)] that require verification that the [Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)], the [Shutdown Cooling (SDC)] System, and the [Containment Spray (CS)] System, are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems continue to be capable of performing their safety functions and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the SDC System, and the CS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the SDC System, and the CS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration. [[Page 54614]] Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request: September 22, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15265A590. Description of amendment request: The amendment would reflect the name change from Duke Energy Florida, Inc., to Duke Energy Florida, LLC. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of any accident previously evaluated because no accident initiators or assumptions are affected. The proposed license transfer and name change is administrative in nature and has no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel qualifications, or the operation and maintenance of CR-3. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because no new accident initiators or assumptions are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed license transfer and name change is administrative in nature and has no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel qualifications, or operation and maintenance of CR-3. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed change does not involve changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences, or reduce response or mitigation capabilities. The proposed license transfer and name change is administrative in nature and has no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel qualifications, or operation and maintenance of CR-3. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, 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, 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, Darlington County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: June 23, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16175A292. Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9 to the TSs for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Oconee Nuclear Station, and H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. The same changes are added as LCO 3.0.10 to the TSs for the Catawba Nuclear Station and McGuire Nuclear Station. For the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, the proposed amendment would modify TS requirements for unavailable barriers by adding LCO 3.0.6 to the TSs. The proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-427, Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITY,'' subject to stated variations. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of [[Page 54615]] LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. Therefore, this 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: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: June 17, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16172A010. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding a note permitting one low- pressure coolant injection (LPCI) subsystem of residual heat removal (RHR) to be considered OPERABLE in Operating Conditions (OPCONs) 4 and 5 during alignment and operation for decay heat removal, if capable of being manually realigned and not otherwise inoperable. 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. There are no physical changes being made to the plant. The LPCI mode of RHR is an automatic ECCS [emergency core cooling system] function during OPCONs 4 and 5. LPCI mode is used in accident conditions to provide cooling and mitigate accident conditions. The proposed note would allow one LPCI subsystem to be considered operable during alignment and operation for decay heat removal if capable of being manually realigned and not otherwise inoperable. The required number of operable ECCS subsystems in OPCONs 4 and 5 would not be reduced from the current requirement. Considering one LPCI subsystem as operable when aligned for SDC [shutdown cooling] does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident. Although it will take longer to realign manually from SDC to LPCI in the event of a drain-down event or accident, with the lower heat loads and temperatures in OPCONs 4 and 5, the operator will have sufficient margin to perform the realignment in the event of a draindown event prior to core uncovery. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The LPCI mode of RHR is an accident mitigator, not an initiator. This change will not reduce the number of required ECCS subsystems during OPCONs 4 and 5. The change will permit the operability of one LPCI subsystem while the components of that subsystem are aligned and operating in the Shutdown Cooling mode of RHR. The change does not alter current methods of plant operation nor does the change make a physical change to plant equipment resulting in an unanalyzed malfunction of equipment. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change, which adds a note which will allow one LPCI subsystem to be considered operable during alignment and operation for decay heat removal if capable of being manually realigned and not otherwise inoperable, does not exceed or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety limit. The basis of TS section 3.5.2 is to ensure sufficient ECCS capacity to maintain core cooling in OPCONs 4 and 5. This proposed change does not affect the required number of ECCS subsystems during OPCONs 4 and 5; therefore adequate capability through subsystem redundancy is maintained. The amount of time required to obtain rated LPCI conditions is increased due to the manual realignment, from the Main Control Room, of the suction valves and restart of the RHR pump following LPCI injection conditions. However, this change will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report] and is consistent with NUREG-1433. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company 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: June 28, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16181A097. Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier 2 and Tier 2* Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and conforming changes to the combined license Appendix C, in order to make changes to the design of certain components of the auxiliary building roof reinforcement and roof girders, and other related changes. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The design functions of the auxiliary building roof are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the auxiliary building. The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I structure and is designed for dead, live, thermal, pressure, safe shutdown earthquake loads, and loads due to postulated pipe breaks. The auxiliary building roof is designed for snow, wind, and tornado loads and postulated external missiles. The proposed changes to UFSAR descriptions and figures are intended to address changes in the detail design of the auxiliary building roof. The thickness and strength of the auxiliary building roof are not reduced. As a result, the design function of the auxiliary building structure is not adversely affected by the proposed changes. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the changes described create any new accident precursors. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the [[Page 54616]] probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to UFSAR descriptions and figures are proposed to address changes in the detail design of the auxiliary building roof. The thickness, geometry, and strength of the structures are not adversely altered. The concrete and reinforcement materials are not altered. The properties of the concrete are not altered. The changes to the design details of the auxiliary building structure do not create any new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the auxiliary building structure is not adversely affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The criteria and requirements of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 provide a margin of safety to structural failure. The design of the auxiliary building structure conforms to applicable criteria and requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690 and therefore maintains the margin of safety. The proposed changes to the UFSAR address changes in the detail design of the auxiliary building roof. There is no change to design requirements of the auxiliary building structure. There is no change to the method of evaluation from that used in the design basis calculations. There is not a significant change to the in structure response spectra. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety previously evaluated. 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 & 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: July 11, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16193A488. Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to the Combined Licenses (COL) Appendix A 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 UFSAR adding compensation for changes in reactor coolant density using the ``delta T'' power signal, to the reactor coolant flow input signal for the low reactor coolant flow trip function of the Reactor Trip System (RTS). Additionally, TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.3 is added to the surveillances required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip in TS Table 3.3.1-1, Function 7. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change adds compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density using the [delta T] power signal, to the reactor coolant flow input signal for the low reactor coolant flow reactor trip function of the RTS. The proposed change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the Reactor Coolant Flow- Low reactor trip specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares the calorimetric heat balance to the calculated [delta T] power in each Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) division every 24 hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As such, the surveillance is also required to support operability of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip function. This change to the low reactor coolant flow trip input signal assures that the reactor will trip on low reactor coolant flow when the requisite conditions are met, and minimize spurious reactor trips and the accompanying plant transients. The change to the COL Appendix A Table 3.3.1-1 aligns the surveillance of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip with the addition of the compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density using [delta T] power to the flow input signal to the trip. These changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. These changes have no adverse impact on the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The response of systems to postulated accident conditions is not adversely affected and remains within response time assumed in the accident analysis. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. Consequently, the plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed change create any new accident precursors. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed change adds compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density using [delta T] power signal, to the reactor coolant flow input signal to the low reactor coolant flow reactor trip function of the RTS. The proposed change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares the calorimetric heat balance to the calculated [delta T] power in each PMS division every 24 hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As such, the surveillance is also required to support operability of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip function. The proposed change to the low reactor coolant flow reactor trip input signal does not alter the design function of the low flow reactor trip. The change to the COL Appendix A Table 3.3.1- 1 aligns the surveillance of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip with the addition of compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density using [delta T] power to the flow input signal to the trip. Consequently, because the low reactor coolant flow trip functions are unchanged, there are no adverse effects that could create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated in the UFSAR. 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 change adds compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density using [delta T] power signal, to the reactor coolant flow input signal for the low reactor coolant flow trip function of the RTS. The proposed change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares the calorimetric heat balance to the calculated [delta T] power in each PMS division every 24 hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As such, the surveillance is also required to support operability of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip function. The proposed changes do not alter any applicable [[Page 54617]] design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/ criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus the margin of safety is not 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: March 11, 2016, as revised on July 12, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16071A404 and ML16196A099, respectively. Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes to depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (which includes the plant-specific DCD Tier 2 information). Specifically, the requested amendment proposes to depart from UFSAR text and figures that describe the connections between floor modules and structural wall modules in the containment internal structures. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29. The change of the design details for the floor modules and the connections between floor modules and the structural wall modules, and the change to more clearly state the design requirement that these connections meet criteria and requirements of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690, do not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions. The change of the design details for the connections between floor modules and the structural wall modules, and the clarification of design requirements for these connections, do not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described create any new accident precursors. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change is to revise design details for the floor modules and the connections between floor modules and the structural wall modules, and more clearly state the design requirement that these connections meet criteria and requirements of ACI 349 and AISC N690. The clarification and changes to the design details for the floor modules and the connections between floor modules and the structural wall modules do not change the design requirements of the nuclear island structures. The clarification and changes of the design details for the floor modules and the connections between floor modules and the structural wall modules do not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The clarification and changes of the design details for the floor modules and the connections between floor modules and the structural wall modules do not result in a new failure mechanism for the nuclear island structures or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the nuclear island structures is not adversely affected by the proposed change. 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. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, no margin of safety is reduced. The acceptance limits for the design of seismic Category I structures are included in the codes and standards used for the design, analysis, and construction of the structures. The two primary codes for the seismic Category I structures are American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 and American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349. These codes provide a margin of safety to structural failure. The changes to the design of the connection of the floor module to the structural wall modules in the containment internal structures satisfy applicable provisions of AISC N690 and ACI 349 and supplemental requirements included in the UFSAR, and therefore maintain the margin of safety. 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. 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: June 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16168A399. Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to the Technical Specification and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 information to update the Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) to align with the requirements in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 603-1991, ``IEEE Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.'' IEEE 603-1991, Clause 6.6, ``Operating Bypasses,'' imposes requirements on the operating bypasses (i.e., ``blocks'' and ``resets'') used for the AP1000 PMS. The PMS functional logic for blocking the source range neutron flux doubling signal shown in UFSAR Figure 7.2-1 (Sheet 3) requires revision to fully comply with this requirement. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff's edits in square brackets: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or [[Page 54618]] consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change modifies the PMS logic used to terminate an inadvertent boron dilution accident which results in a source range flux doubling signal. An inadvertent boron dilution is caused by the failure of the demineralized water transfer and storage system or chemical and volume control system, either by controller, operator or mechanical failure. The proposed changes to PMS and Technical Specification requirements do not adversely affect any of these accident initiators or introduce any component failures that could lead to a boron dilution event; thus the probabilities of accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed changes do not adversely interface with or adversely affect any system containing radioactivity or affect any radiological material release source term; thus the radiological releases in an accident are not affected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The accident analysis evaluates events involving a decrease in reactor coolant system boron concentration due to a malfunction of the chemical and volume control system in Modes 1 through 6. The Technical Specifications currently provide administrative controls to prevent a boron dilution event in Mode 6. The proposed change would provide additional PMS interlocks and administrative controls for prevention of a boron dilution event applicable in Modes 2, 3, 4, and 5. The proposed changes to the PMS design do not adversely affect the design or operation of safety related equipment or equipment whose failure could initiate an accident from what is already described in the licensing basis. These changes do not adversely affect fission product barriers. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested change. 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 change would add additional restrictions on the source range flux doubling signal operational bypass to align it with the requirements in IEEE 603 and provide assurance that the protection logic is enabled whenever the plant is in a condition where protection might be required. These changes to the PMS design do not adversely impact nor affect the design, construction, or operation of any plant [structure, system, and components (SSCs)], including any equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no system function, design function, or equipment qualification will be adversely affected by the changes. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas Date of amendment request: June 14, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16174A121. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone No. 8 completion date and the physical protection license condition. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, there are no changes to these established safety margins. 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in [[Page 54619]] 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. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2) and Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: June 30, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated February 25 and June 29, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the MPS2 and MPS3 licensing basis by deleting the information in the final safety analysis reports pertaining to the severe line outage detection special protection system, updating the description of the tower structures associated with the four offsite transmission lines feeding Millstone Power Station (MPS), and describing how the current offsite power source configuration and design satisfies the requirements of General Design Criteria (GDC) 17, ``Electric Power Systems,'' and GDC 5, ``Sharing of Structures, Systems, and Components.'' A new technical requirements manual (TRM) section, ``Offsite Line Power Sources,'' was added to the MPS2 and MPS3 TRM supporting the licensing basis change. Specifically, with one offsite transmission line nonfunctional, the TRM requirement would allow 72 hours to restore the nonfunctional line with a provision to allow up to 7 days (for Lines 310, 348, and 383) or up to 14 days (for Line 371/364) if specific TRM action requirements are met. Date of issuance: July 28, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 328 and 269. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16193A001; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49: Amendments revised the Renewed Operating Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61478). The supplemental letters dated February 25 and June 29, 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 July 28, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: May 8, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated January 28, February 25, March 23, March 29, and May 2, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) to (1) allow the use of Dominion nuclear safety and reload core design methods; (2) allow the use of applicable departure from nucleate boiling ratio design limits for VIPRE-D; (3) update the approved reference methodologies cited in TS 6.9.1.6.b; (4) remove the base load mode of operation that is not a feature of the Dominion Relaxed Power Distribution Control power distribution control methodology; and (5) address the issues identified in Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-09-5), Rev. 1, NSAL-15-1, and Westinghouse Communication 06-IC-03. Additionally, the amendment relocates certain equations, supporting descriptions and surveillance requirements from the TSs to licensee-controlled documents. Date of issuance: July 28, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 268. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16131A728; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised the Renewed Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52804). The supplemental letters dated January 28, February 25, March 23, March 29, 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 proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. A subsequent notice was published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2016 (81 FR 38226), to include the added clarification that the proposed amendment changes involve the relocation of TS information either to the TS Bases or the Core Operating Limits Report which are both licensee-controlled documents. There were no changes to the no significant hazards consideration determination as originally noticed. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; and 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 15, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated February 1, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the facilities' Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSARs) to provide gap release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods that exceed the linear heat generation rate limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11, of Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' July 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792). Date of issuance: July 19, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 285 (Unit 1) and 281 (Unit 2), for the Catawba Nuclear Station; 289 (Unit 1) and 268 (Unit 2), for the McGuire Nuclear Station; and 401 (Unit 1), 403 (Unit 2), and 402 (Unit 3), for the Oconee Nuclear Station. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16159A336; documents related to these amendments [[Page 54620]] are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52, for the Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2; NPF-9 and NPF-17, for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3: The amendments revised the facilities as described in the UFSARs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61480). The supplemental letter dated February 1, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated April 25, 2016, and June 8, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the as-found lift setting tolerance for main steam line code safety valves, revised the nominal reactor trip setpoint on pressurizer water level, and revised pressurizer water level span in the Technical Specifications (TSs). Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. The updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) changes shall be implemented in the next periodic update to the UFSAR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e). Amendment No.: A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16155A124; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19646). The supplemental letters dated April 25 and June 8, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request: June 17, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated March 3, April 28, and July 12, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the Waterford 3 Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The amendment is in compliance with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b. Date of issuance: July 26, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16159A419; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52805). The supplements dated March 3, April 28, and July 12, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois Date of application for amendment: August 19, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated January 20, March 31, April 30, August 24, October 9, October 30, November 9, and December 16, 2015, and February 12 and April 29, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment raised the Technical Specification (TS) temperature limit of the cooling water supplied to the plant from the ultimate heat sink from less than or equal to (<=) 100 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to <= 102 [deg]F. Date of issuance: July 26, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit No. 1-189; Unit No. 2-189. A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A438; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77: The amendment revised the License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 17088). The supplements contained clarifying information, did not change the scope of the requested change, 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 a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: July 14, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated January 21 and July 15, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.8.1.1.2.g.1 related to draining each fuel oil storage tank, removing the accumulated sediment, and cleaning the tank. The amendments require the licensee to place the content of the SR in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments.'' Date of issuance: July 28, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 233 and 183. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16103A397; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments [[Page 54621]] revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 29, 2015 (80 FR 58518). The supplemental letters dated January 21, and July 15, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated July 28, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request: August 6, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 17, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) to relocate the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure-temperature (P-T) limits from the TS limiting condition for operation to a new licensee-controlled document--the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report. The actual RCS P-T limit curves, as currently established in the CNS TS, and all associated parameters, which are valid through 32 effective full power years of facility operation, are not affected by the TS amendment. Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16158A022; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 3, 2015 (80 FR 67802). The supplemental letter dated March 17, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation July 25, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request: March 11, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions, Shutdown Margin (SDM)'' consistent with the proposed changes in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler, TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin [SDM] Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs.'' Prior to the amendment, the plant's SDM (i.e., the amount of reactivity by which the reactor is subcritical) was calculated using a shutdown moderator temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). This value was conservative for standard fuel designs. However, new, advanced boiling- water reactor fuel designs can have a higher reactivity at moderator shutdown temperatures above 68 [deg]F. Therefore, the amendment implemented TSTF-535, Revision 0, which modified the TSs to require the SDM to be calculated at whatever moderator temperature produces the maximum reactivity with moderator temperature greater than or equal to 68 [deg]F. Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16119A433; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21600). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request: September 8, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated June 13, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment replaced Technical Specification (TS) Figure 4.1-1, ``Site and Exclusion Area Boundaries and Low Population Zone,'' with a text description of the site in TS 4.1, ``Site Location.'' In addition, typographical errors were corrected in Section 1.1, ``Definitions.'' Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 255. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16146A749; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69712). The supplemental letter dated June 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 amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa Date of amendment request: July 30, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) Sections 1.1, ``Definitions,'' 3.4.9, ``[Reactor Coolant System (RCS)] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and 5.6, ``Reporting Requirements,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit curves with references to a P/T Limits Report (PTLR). Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 294. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16180A086; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76328). The supplemental by letters dated December 18, 2015, and February 19, March 11, and March 30, 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 [[Page 54622]] original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota Date of amendment request: September 2, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.3.b to require verification that the MNGP alternate nitrogen system required pressure be greater than or equal to 1060 psig [pounds per square inch gauge] instead of greater than or equal to 410 psig as previously stated. Date of issuance: August 1, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. Amendment No.: 190. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16196A303; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61483). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: December 31, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the license to permit use of the Fuel Rod Performance and Design 4 Thermal Conductivity Degradation (PAD4TCD) computer program for the second cycle of plant operation. Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 14 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 1. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16174A354; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10682). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of August, 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2016-19213 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![54610 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices
Museum and Library Services, 955 reaching children and families from Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
L’Enfant Plaza North SW., Suite 4000, diverse economic, social, and cultural publishing this regular biweekly notice.
Washington, DC 20024–2135. Mrs. backgrounds, with different levels of The Act requires the Commission to
Burwell can be reached by Telephone: knowledge about STEM. publish notice of any amendments
202–653–4684, Fax: 202–653–4625, or Current Actions: This notice proposes issued, or proposed to be issued, and
by email at sburwell@imls.gov or by clearance of the STEM Expert grants the Commission the authority to
teletype (TTY/TDD) at 202–653–4614. Facilitation of Family Learning in issue and make immediately effective
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 Libraries and Museums (STEMeX)—A any amendment to an operating license
p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, National Leadership Grants Special or combined license, as applicable,
except Federal holidays. Initiative, was published in the Federal upon a determination by the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Register on May 25, 2016 (FR vol. 81, Commission that such amendment
Institute of Museum and Library No. 101, pgs. 33273–33274). There were involves no significant hazards
Services is the primary source of federal no public comments. consideration, notwithstanding the
support for the Nation’s 123,000 Agency: Institute of Museum and pendency before the Commission of a
libraries and 35,000 museums. The Library Services. request for a hearing from any person.
Institute’s mission is to inspire libraries Title: STEM Expert Facilitation of This biweekly notice includes all
and museums to advance innovation, Family Learning in Libraries and notices of amendments issued, or
learning, and civic engagement. The Museums (STEMeX)—A National proposed to be issued from July 19,
Institute works at the national level and Leadership Grants Special Initiative. 2016, to August 1, 2016. The last
in coordination with state and local OMB Number: TBD. biweekly notice was published on
organizations to sustain heritage, Agency Number: 3137. August 2, 2016.
culture, and knowledge; enhance Frequency: One time. DATES: Comments must be filed by
learning and innovation; and support Affected Public: Libraries, agencies, September 15, 2016. A request for a
professional development. IMLS is institutions of higher education, hearing must be filed by October 17,
responsible for identifying national museums, and other entities that 2016.
needs for and trends in museum, advance the museum and library fields
and that meet the eligibility criteria. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
library, and information services; by any of the following methods (unless
measuring and reporting on the impact Number of Respondents: 37.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 40 this document describes a different
and effectiveness of museum, library method for submitting comments on a
and information services throughout the hours.
Total Burden Hours: 1,480. specific subject):
United States, including programs • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
conducted with funds made available by Total Annualized Cost to
Respondents: $43,805. http://www.regulations.gov and search
IMLS; identifying, and disseminating for Docket ID NRC–2016–0161. Address
information on, the best practices of Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Costs: 0. questions about NRC dockets to Carol
such programs; and developing plans to Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
improve museum, library, and Total Annualized Cost to Federal
Government: $9,890. email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
information services of the United technical questions, contact the
States and strengthen national, State, Contact: Comments should be sent to
Office of Information and Regulatory individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
local, regional, and international INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
communications and cooperative Affairs, Attn.: OMB Desk Officer for
Education, Office of Management and document.
networks (20 U.S.C. 72, 20 U.S.C. 9108). • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
The purpose of this survey is to Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC
20503, (202) 395–7316. Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
administer the STEM Expert Facilitation OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear
of Family Learning in Libraries and Dated: August 10, 2016.
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
Museums (STEMeX)—A National Kim A. Miller,
DC 20555–0001.
Leadership Grants Special Initiative. Grants Specialist, Office of the Chief For additional direction on obtaining
National Leadership Grants for Libraries Financial Officer.
information and submitting comments,
(NLG-Libraries) and National [FR Doc. 2016–19451 Filed 8–15–16; 8:45 am] see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Leadership Grants for Museums (NLG- BILLING CODE 7036–01–P Submitting Comments’’ in the
Museums), under which this special SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
initiative falls, support projects that this document.
address challenges faced by the library NUCLEAR REGULATORY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
and museum fields and that have the COMMISSION
potential to advance practice in those Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
fields. Successful projects will generate [NRC–2016–0161] Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
results such as new tools, research Regulatory Commission, Washington,
Biweekly Notice; Applications and DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
findings, models, services, practices, or
Amendments to Facility Operating 1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.
alliances that can be widely used,
Licenses and Combined Licenses
adapted, scaled, or replicated to extend I. Obtaining Information and
Involving No Significant Hazards
the benefits of federal investment. This
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Considerations Submitting Comments
special joint NLG-Libraries and NLG-
Museums initiative invites proposals for A. Obtaining Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
research on informal educational Commission. Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016–
approaches that leverage community ACTION: Biweekly notice. 0161, facility name, unit number(s),
Science, Technology, Engineering, and plant docket number, application date,
Math (STEM) professionals in the SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) and subject when contacting the NRC
broadest sense. Funded research of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as about the availability of information for
projects will create a foundation for amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear this action. You may obtain publicly-
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54768/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices 54613
apply for and receive a digital ID information. However, in some initiator of any accident previously
certificate before a hearing request/ instances, a hearing request and petition evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
petition to intervene is filed so that they to intervene will require including accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs
can obtain access to the document via information on local residence in order ensure that the subject systems continue to
the E-Filing system. to demonstrate a proximity assertion of be capable of performing their safety
A person filing electronically using interest in the proceeding. With respect functions and are not rendered inoperable
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system to copyrighted works, except for limited due to gas accumulation. Thus, the
may seek assistance by contacting the excerpts that serve the purpose of the consequences of any accident previously
NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk adjudicatory filings and would evaluated are not significantly increased.
through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located constitute a Fair Use application, Therefore, the proposed change does not
on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// involve a significant increase in the
participants are requested not to include
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- probability or consequences of an accident
copyrighted materials in their previously evaluated.
submittals.html, by email to submission. 2. Does the proposed amendment create
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- For further details with respect to the possibility of a new or different kind of
free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC these license amendment applications, accident from any accident previously
Electronic Filing Help Desk is available see the application for amendment evaluated?
between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern which is available for public inspection Response: No.
Time, Monday through Friday, in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For The proposed change revises or adds SRs
excluding government holidays. that require verification that the ECCS, the
additional direction on accessing
Participants who believe that they SDC System, and the CS System are not
information related to this document, rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
have a good cause for not submitting see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and and to provide allowances which permit
documents electronically must file an Submitting Comments’’ section of this performance of the revised verification. The
exemption request, in accordance with document. proposed change does not involve a physical
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper Arizona Public Service Company, et al., alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
filing stating why there is good cause for Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, different type of equipment will be installed)
not filing electronically and requesting and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear
or a change in the methods governing normal
authorization to continue to submit plant operation. In addition, the proposed
Generating Station (PVNGS), Units 1, 2, change does not impose any new or different
documents in paper format. Such filings and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
must be submitted by: (1) First class requirements that could initiate an accident.
Date of amendment request: June 29, The proposed change does not alter
mail addressed to the Office of the assumptions made in the safety analysis and
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 2016. Publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. is consistent with the safety analysis
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, assumptions.
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: ML16182A171. Therefore, the proposed change does not
Description of amendment request:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or create the possibility of a new or different
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited The amendments would revise the kind of accident from any accident
delivery service to the Office of the Technical Specifications (TSs) for previously evaluated.
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, by modifying 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
the TS requirements to address Generic a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Response: No.
Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Letter (GL) 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas
Accumulation in Emergency Core The proposed change revises or adds SRs
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. that require verification that the ECCS, the
Participants filing a document in this Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and SDC System, and the CS System are not
manner are responsible for serving the Containment Spray Systems,’’ dated rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
document on all other participants. January 11, 2008 (ADAMS Accession and to provide allowances which permit
Filing is considered complete by first- No. ML072910759), as described in performance of the revised verification. The
class mail as of the time of deposit in Technical Specification Task Force proposed change adds new requirements to
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–523, Revision 2, manage gas accumulation in order to ensure
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or the subject systems are capable of performing
expedited delivery service upon ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas
their assumed safety functions. The proposed
depositing the document with the Accumulation’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
SRs are more comprehensive than the current
provider of the service. A presiding ML13053A075). SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of
officer, having granted an exemption Basis for proposed no significant the safety analysis are protected. The
request from using E-Filing, may require hazards consideration determination: proposed change does not adversely affect
a participant or party to use E-Filing if As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the any current plant safety margins or the
the presiding officer subsequently licensee has provided its analysis of the reliability of the equipment assumed in the
issue of no significant hazards safety analysis. Therefore, there are no
determines that the reason for granting changes being made to any safety analysis
the exemption from use of E-Filing no consideration, which is presented
assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety
longer exists. below:
system settings that would adversely affect
Documents submitted in adjudicatory 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
plant safety as a result of the proposed
a significant increase in the probability or
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s consequences of an accident previously
change.
electronic hearing docket which is Therefore, the proposed change does not
evaluated?
available to the public at http:// involve a significant reduction in a margin of
Response: No.
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded safety.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The proposed change revises or adds
pursuant to an order of the Commission, [Surveillance Requirements (SRs)] that The NRC staff has reviewed the
or the presiding officer. Participants are require verification that the [Emergency Core licensee’s analysis and, based on that
requested not to include personal Cooling System (ECCS)], the [Shutdown review, it appears that the three
privacy information, such as social Cooling (SDC)] System, and the [Containment standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
Spray (CS)] System, are not rendered
security numbers, home addresses, or inoperable due to accumulated gas and to satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
home phone numbers in their filings, provide allowances which permit proposes to determine that the request
unless an NRC regulation or other law performance of the revised verification. Gas for amendments involves no significant
requires submission of such accumulation in the subject systems is not an hazards consideration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54768/page/4.svg)
![54614 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to significant increase in the probability or
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. determine that the amendment request consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, involves no significant hazards
Response: No.
Arizona 85072–2034. consideration. The proposed change allows a delay time
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, for entering a supported system technical
Pascarelli. 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC specification (TS) when the inoperability is
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket 28202. due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is
No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson. assessed and managed. The postulated
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. initiating events which may require a
Generating Plant (CR–3), Citrus County, functional barrier are limited to those with
Florida 50–325 and 50–324; Brunswick Steam low frequencies of occurrence, and the
Date of amendment request: Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick overall TS system safety function would still
September 22, 2015. A publicly- County, North Carolina be available for the majority of anticipated
available version is in ADAMS under Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket challenges. Therefore, the probability of an
Accession No. ML15265A590. Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba accident previously evaluated is not
Description of amendment request: Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York significantly increased, if at all. The
The amendment would reflect the name consequences of an accident while relying on
County, South Carolina
change from Duke Energy Florida, Inc., the allowance provided by proposed LCO
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 3.0.9 are no different than the consequences
to Duke Energy Florida, LLC. 50–400; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power of an accident while relying on the TS
Basis for proposed no significant
Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North required actions in effect without the
hazards consideration determination: allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
Carolina
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Therefore, the consequences of an accident
licensee has provided its analysis of the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
previously evaluated are not significantly
issue of no significant hazards Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire affected by this change. The addition of a
consideration, which is presented Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, requirement to assess and manage the risk
below: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina introduced by this change will further
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket minimize possible concerns.
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Therefore, this change does not involve a
a significant increase in the probability or
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
3, Oconee County, South Carolina consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
evaluated.
Response: No. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 2. Does the proposed change create the
The proposed change does not involve a 50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric possibility of a new or different kind of
significant increase in the probability of any
Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, accident from any accident previously
accident previously evaluated because no
accident initiators or assumptions are South Carolina evaluated?
Date of amendment request: June 23, Response: No.
affected. The proposed license transfer and
The proposed change does not involve a
name change is administrative in nature and 2016. A publicly-available version is in
has no direct effect on any plant system, physical alteration of the plant (no new or
ADAMS under Accession No. different type of equipment will be installed).
plant personnel qualifications, or the ML16175A292.
operation and maintenance of CR–3. Allowing delay times for entering supported
Description of amendment request: system TS when inoperability is due solely
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
The amendments would modify the to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed
accident from any accident previously Technical Specification (TS) and managed, will not introduce new failure
evaluated? requirements for unavailable barriers by modes or effects and will not, in the absence
Response: No. adding Limiting Condition for of other unrelated failures, lead to an
The proposed change does not create the Operation (LCO) 3.0.9 to the TSs for the accident whose consequences exceed the
possibility of a new or different kind of consequences of accidents previously
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Oconee
accident from any previously evaluated evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
Nuclear Station, and H.B. Robinson assess and manage the risk introduced by this
because no new accident initiators or Steam Electric Plant. The same changes
assumptions are introduced by the proposed change will further minimize possible
are added as LCO 3.0.10 to the TSs for concerns.
changes. The proposed license transfer and
name change is administrative in nature and the Catawba Nuclear Station and Therefore, this change does not create the
has no direct effect on any plant system, McGuire Nuclear Station. For the possibility of a new or different kind of
plant personnel qualifications, or operation Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, the accident from an accident previously
and maintenance of CR–3. proposed amendment would modify TS evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve requirements for unavailable barriers by 3. Does the proposed change involve a
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? significant reduction in the margin of safety?
adding LCO 3.0.6 to the TSs. The
Response: No. Response: No.
proposed changes are consistent with The proposed change allows a delay time
The proposed change does not involve a Technical Specification Task Force
significant reduction in a margin of safety for entering a supported system TS when the
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–427, Revision 2, inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
because the proposed change does not
involve changes to the initial conditions ‘‘Allowance for Non-Technical barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The
contributing to accident severity or Specification Barrier Degradation on postulated initiating events which may
Supported System OPERABILITY,’’ require a functional barrier are limited to
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
consequences, or reduce response or
mitigation capabilities. The proposed license subject to stated variations. those with low frequencies of occurrence,
transfer and name change is administrative in Basis for proposed no significant and the overall TS system safety function
nature and has no direct effect on any plant would still be available for the majority of
hazards consideration determination:
system, plant personnel qualifications, or anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the proposed TS changes was assessed following
operation and maintenance of CR–3. licensee has provided its analysis of the the three-tiered approach recommended in
The NRC staff has reviewed the issue of no significant hazards RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding
licensee’s analysis and, based on this consideration, which is presented risk assessment was performed to justify the
review, it appears that the three below: proposed TS changes. This application of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54768/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices 54615
LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee’s ECCS subsystems in OPCONs 4 and 5 would amendment request involves no
performance of a risk assessment and the not be reduced from the current requirement. significant hazards consideration.
management of plant risk. The net change to Considering one LPCI subsystem as operable Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan,
the margin of safety is insignificant as when aligned for SDC [shutdown cooling] PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236,
indicated by the anticipated low levels of does not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident. Although it will
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental
take longer to realign manually from SDC to NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
conditional core damage probability] and
ICLERP [incremental conditional large early LPCI in the event of a drain-down event or Broaddus.
release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of accident, with the lower heat loads and South Carolina Electric and Gas
Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. temperatures in OPCONs 4 and 5, the Company and South Carolina Public
Therefore, this change does not involve a operator will have sufficient margin to Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027
significant reduction in a margin of safety. perform the realignment in the event of a and 52–028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
draindown event prior to core uncovery. Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3,
The NRC staff has reviewed the Therefore, the proposed change does not
licensee’s analysis and, based on this involve a significant increase in the Fairfield County, South Carolina
review, it appears that the three probability or consequences of an accident Date of amendment request: June 28,
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are previously evaluated. 2016. A publicly-available version is in
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 2. Does the proposed amendment create ADAMS under Accession No.
proposes to determine that the the possibility of a new or different kind of ML16181A097.
amendment request involves no accident from any accident previously Description of amendment request:
evaluated? The proposed changes, if approved for
significant hazards consideration. Response: No.
Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, the VCSNS, involve departures from
The LPCI mode of RHR is an accident
Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy mitigator, not an initiator. This change will incorporated plant-specific Tier 2 and
Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tyron Street, not reduce the number of required ECCS Tier 2* Updated Final Safety Analysis
Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC subsystems during OPCONs 4 and 5. The Report (UFSAR) information and
28202. change will permit the operability of one conforming changes to the combined
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. LPCI subsystem while the components of that license Appendix C, in order to make
Markley. subsystem are aligned and operating in the changes to the design of certain
Shutdown Cooling mode of RHR. The change components of the auxiliary building
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, does not alter current methods of plant
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem roof reinforcement and roof girders, and
operation nor does the change make a
County, New Jersey other related changes.
physical change to plant equipment resulting
Basis for proposed no significant
Date of amendment request: June 17, in an unanalyzed malfunction of equipment.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not hazards consideration determination:
2016. A publicly-available version is in As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
ADAMS under Accession No. create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously licensee has provided its analysis of the
ML16172A010. issue of no significant hazards
evaluated.
Description of amendment request: 3. Does the proposed amendment involve consideration, which is presented
The amendment would revise the a significant reduction in a margin of safety? below:
Technical Specifications (TSs) by Response: No.
adding a note permitting one low- The proposed change, which adds a note 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
pressure coolant injection (LPCI) which will allow one LPCI subsystem to be
consequences of an accident previously
subsystem of residual heat removal considered operable during alignment and
evaluated?
(RHR) to be considered OPERABLE in operation for decay heat removal if capable
Response: No.
Operating Conditions (OPCONs) 4 and 5 of being manually realigned and not
The design functions of the auxiliary
otherwise inoperable, does not exceed or
during alignment and operation for building roof are to provide support,
alter a setpoint, design basis or safety limit. protection, and separation for the seismic
decay heat removal, if capable of being The basis of TS section 3.5.2 is to ensure
manually realigned and not otherwise Category I mechanical and electrical
sufficient ECCS capacity to maintain core equipment located in the auxiliary building.
inoperable. cooling in OPCONs 4 and 5. This proposed The auxiliary building is a seismic Category
Basis for proposed no significant change does not affect the required number I structure and is designed for dead, live,
hazards consideration determination: of ECCS subsystems during OPCONs 4 and thermal, pressure, safe shutdown earthquake
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 5; therefore adequate capability through loads, and loads due to postulated pipe
licensee has provided its analysis of the subsystem redundancy is maintained. The breaks. The auxiliary building roof is
issue of no significant hazards amount of time required to obtain rated LPCI designed for snow, wind, and tornado loads
conditions is increased due to the manual and postulated external missiles. The
consideration, which is presented
realignment, from the Main Control Room, of proposed changes to UFSAR descriptions
below: the suction valves and restart of the RHR and figures are intended to address changes
1. Does the proposed amendment involve pump following LPCI injection conditions. in the detail design of the auxiliary building
a significant increase in the probability or However, this change will not result in any roof. The thickness and strength of the
consequences of an accident previously design or regulatory limit being exceeded auxiliary building roof are not reduced. As a
evaluated? with respect to the safety analyses result, the design function of the auxiliary
Response: No. documented in the UFSAR [updated final building structure is not adversely affected
There are no physical changes being made safety analysis report] and is consistent with by the proposed changes. There is no change
to the plant. The LPCI mode of RHR is an NUREG–1433. to plant systems or the response of systems
automatic ECCS [emergency core cooling Therefore, the proposed amendment does to postulated accident conditions. There is
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
system] function during OPCONs 4 and 5. not involve a significant reduction in a no change to the predicted radioactive
LPCI mode is used in accident conditions to margin of safety. releases due to postulated accident
provide cooling and mitigate accident The NRC staff has reviewed the conditions. The plant response to previously
conditions. The proposed note would allow evaluated accidents or external events is not
one LPCI subsystem to be considered
licensee’s analysis and, based on this adversely affected, nor do the changes
operable during alignment and operation for review, it appears that the three described create any new accident
decay heat removal if capable of being standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are precursors.
manually realigned and not otherwise satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Therefore, the proposed amendment does
inoperable. The required number of operable proposes to determine that the not involve a significant increase in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54768/page/6.svg)
![54616 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices
probability or consequences of an accident ADAMS under Accession No. response time assumed in the accident
previously evaluated. ML16193A488. analysis. There is no change to the predicted
2. Does the proposed amendment create Description of amendment request: radioactive releases due to normal operation
the possibility of a new or different kind of or postulated accident conditions.
The amendment request proposes
accident from any accident previously Consequently, the plant response to
evaluated?
changes to the Combined Licenses previously evaluated accidents or external
Response: No. (COL) Appendix A Technical events is not adversely affected, nor does the
The proposed changes to UFSAR Specifications (TS) and Updated Final proposed change create any new accident
descriptions and figures are proposed to Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the precursors.
address changes in the detail design of the form of departures from the Therefore, the proposed amendment does
auxiliary building roof. The thickness, incorporated plant-specific Design not involve a significant increase in the
geometry, and strength of the structures are Control Document Tier 2 information. probability or consequences of an accident
not adversely altered. The concrete and previously evaluated.
Specifically, the proposed departures
reinforcement materials are not altered. The 2. Does the proposed amendment create
consist of changes to the UFSAR adding the possibility of a new or different kind of
properties of the concrete are not altered. The
changes to the design details of the auxiliary
compensation for changes in reactor accident from any accident previously
building structure do not create any new coolant density using the ‘‘delta T’’ evaluated?
accident precursors. As a result, the design power signal, to the reactor coolant flow Response: No.
function of the auxiliary building structure is input signal for the low reactor coolant The proposed changes do not affect the
not adversely affected by the proposed flow trip function of the Reactor Trip operation of any systems or equipment that
changes. System (RTS). Additionally, TS may initiate a new or different kind of
Therefore, the proposed amendment does accident, or alter any SSC such that a new
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.3 is
not create the possibility of a new or different accident initiator or initiating sequence of
added to the surveillances required for events is created. The proposed change adds
kind of accident previously evaluated. the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor
3. Does the proposed amendment involve compensation, for changes in reactor coolant
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
trip in TS Table 3.3.1–1, Function 7. density using [delta T] power signal, to the
Response: No. Basis for proposed no significant reactor coolant flow input signal to the low
The criteria and requirements of American hazards consideration determination. reactor coolant flow reactor trip function of
Concrete Institute (ACI) 349 and American As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the RTS. The proposed change also adds TS
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 licensee has provided its analysis of the SR 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for
provide a margin of safety to structural issue of no significant hazards the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip
failure. The design of the auxiliary building specified in TS Table 3.3.1–1. SR 3.3.1.3
consideration, which is presented
structure conforms to applicable criteria and compares the calorimetric heat balance to the
below: calculated [delta T] power in each PMS
requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690 and
therefore maintains the margin of safety. The 1. Does the proposed amendment involve division every 24 hours to assure acceptable
proposed changes to the UFSAR address a significant increase in the probability or [delta T] power calibration. As such, the
changes in the detail design of the auxiliary consequences of an accident previously surveillance is also required to support
building roof. There is no change to design evaluated? operability of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low
requirements of the auxiliary building Response: No. trip function. The proposed change to the
structure. There is no change to the method The proposed change adds compensation, low reactor coolant flow reactor trip input
of evaluation from that used in the design for changes in reactor coolant density using signal does not alter the design function of
basis calculations. There is not a significant the [delta T] power signal, to the reactor the low flow reactor trip. The change to the
change to the in structure response spectra. coolant flow input signal for the low reactor COL Appendix A Table 3.3.1–1 aligns the
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance coolant flow reactor trip function of the RTS. surveillance of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by The proposed change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 trip with the addition of compensation, for
the proposed changes, thus no margin of to the surveillances required for the Reactor changes in reactor coolant density using
safety is reduced. Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip specified in [delta T] power to the flow input signal to the
Therefore, the proposed amendment does TS Table 3.3.1–1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares the trip. Consequently, because the low reactor
not involve a significant reduction in a calorimetric heat balance to the calculated coolant flow trip functions are unchanged,
margin of safety previously evaluated. [delta T] power in each Protection and Safety there are no adverse effects that could create
Monitoring System (PMS) division every 24 the possibility of a new or different kind of
The NRC staff has reviewed the hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power accident from any previously evaluated in
licensee’s analysis and, based on this calibration. As such, the surveillance is also the UFSAR.
review, it appears that the three required to support operability of the Reactor Therefore, the proposed amendment does
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Coolant Flow-Low trip function. This change not create the possibility of a new or different
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff to the low reactor coolant flow trip input kind of accident from any accident
proposes to determine that the signal assures that the reactor will trip on previously evaluated.
low reactor coolant flow when the requisite 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
amendment request involves no conditions are met, and minimize spurious a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
significant hazards consideration. reactor trips and the accompanying plant Response: No.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. transients. The change to the COL Appendix The proposed change adds compensation,
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, A Table 3.3.1–1 aligns the surveillance of the for changes in reactor coolant density using
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip with the [delta T] power signal, to the reactor coolant
Washington, DC 20004–2514. addition of the compensation, for changes in flow input signal for the low reactor coolant
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer reactor coolant density using [delta T] power flow trip function of the RTS. The proposed
to the flow input signal to the trip. These change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 to the
Dixon-Herrity.
changes do not affect the operation of any surveillances required for the Reactor
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company systems or equipment that initiate an Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip specified in
and South Carolina Public Service analyzed accident or alter any structures, TS Table 3.3.1–1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares the
Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– systems, and components (SSC) accident calorimetric heat balance to the calculated
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station initiator or initiating sequence of events. [delta T] power in each PMS division every
(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield These changes have no adverse impact on 24 hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power
the support, design, or operation of calibration. As such, the surveillance is also
County, South Carolina
mechanical and fluid systems. The response required to support operability of the Reactor
Date of amendment request: July 11, of systems to postulated accident conditions Coolant Flow-Low trip function. The
2016. A publicly-available version is in is not adversely affected and remains within proposed changes do not alter any applicable
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54768/page/7.svg)
![54618 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices
consequences of an accident previously Furthermore, no system function, design administrative in nature. This proposed
evaluated? function, or equipment qualification will be change does not alter accident analysis
Response: No. adversely affected by the changes. assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
The proposed change modifies the PMS Therefore, the proposed amendment does function of plant systems or the manner in
logic used to terminate an inadvertent boron not involve a significant reduction in a which systems are operated, maintained,
dilution accident which results in a source margin of safety. modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
range flux doubling signal. An inadvertent change does not require any plant
The NRC staff has reviewed the modifications which affect the performance
boron dilution is caused by the failure of the
demineralized water transfer and storage licensee’s analysis and, based on this capability of the SSCs relied upon to mitigate
system or chemical and volume control review, it appears that the three the consequences of postulated accidents,
system, either by controller, operator or standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are and does not create the possibility of a new
mechanical failure. The proposed changes to satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff or different kind of accident from any
PMS and Technical Specification proposes to determine that the accident previously evaluated.
requirements do not adversely affect any of amendment request involves no Therefore, the proposed change does not
these accident initiators or introduce any significant hazards consideration. create the possibility of a new or different
component failures that could lead to a boron Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford kind of accident from any previously
dilution event; thus the probabilities of evaluated.
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 3. Does the proposed change involve a
accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The proposed changes do not Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL significant reduction in a margin of safety?
adversely interface with or adversely affect 35203–2015. Response: No.
any system containing radioactivity or affect NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Plant safety margins are established
any radiological material release source term; Dixon-Herrity. through limiting conditions for operation,
thus the radiological releases in an accident Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating limiting safety system settings, and safety
are not affected. Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50– limits specified in the technical
Therefore, the proposed change does not 482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, specifications. The proposed change to the
involve a significant increase in the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Coffey County, Kansas Schedule is administrative in nature. Since
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. Date of amendment request: June 14, the proposed change is administrative in
2. Does the proposed amendment create 2016. A publicly-available version is in nature, there are no changes to these
the possibility of a new or different kind of ADAMS under Accession No. established safety margins.
accident from any accident previously ML16174A121. Therefore the proposed change does not
evaluated? Description of amendment request: involve a significant reduction in a margin of
Response: No. The amendment would revise the Cyber safety.
The accident analysis evaluates events Security Plan Implementation Milestone The NRC staff has reviewed the
involving a decrease in reactor coolant No. 8 completion date and the physical licensee’s analysis and, based on this
system boron concentration due to a
protection license condition. review, it appears that the three
malfunction of the chemical and volume
Basis for proposed no significant standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
control system in Modes 1 through 6. The
Technical Specifications currently provide hazards consideration determination: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
administrative controls to prevent a boron As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the proposes to determine that the
dilution event in Mode 6. The proposed licensee has provided its analysis of the amendment request involves no
change would provide additional PMS issue of no significant hazards significant hazards consideration.
interlocks and administrative controls for consideration, which is presented Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,
prevention of a boron dilution event below: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
applicable in Modes 2, 3, 4, and 5. The 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC
proposed changes to the PMS design do not 1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or 20037.
adversely affect the design or operation of NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
consequences of an accident previously
safety related equipment or equipment whose
failure could initiate an accident from what
evaluated? Pascarelli.
Response: No.
is already described in the licensing basis. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber
These changes do not adversely affect fission to Facility Operating Licenses and
Security Plan Implementation Schedule is
product barriers. No safety analysis or design administrative in nature. This proposed Combined Licenses
basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged change does not alter accident analysis
or exceeded by the requested change. During the period since publication of
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
Therefore, the proposed amendment does function of plant systems or the manner in the last biweekly notice, the
not create the possibility of a new or different which systems are operated, maintained, Commission has issued the following
kind of accident from any accident modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed amendments. The Commission has
previously evaluated. change does not require any plant determined for each of these
3. Does the proposed amendment involve modifications which affect the performance amendments that the application
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? capability of the structures, systems, and
Response: No.
complies with the standards and
components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
The proposed change would add the consequences of postulated accidents,
additional restrictions on the source range and has no impact on the probability or of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
flux doubling signal operational bypass to consequences of an accident previously Commission’s rules and regulations.
align it with the requirements in IEEE 603 evaluated. The Commission has made appropriate
and provide assurance that the protection Therefore, the proposed changes do not findings as required by the Act and the
logic is enabled whenever the plant is in a involve a significant increase in the Commission’s rules and regulations in
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
condition where protection might be probability or consequences of an accident 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
required. These changes to the PMS design previously evaluated. the license amendment.
do not adversely impact nor affect the design, 2. Does the proposed change create the A notice of consideration of issuance
construction, or operation of any plant possibility of a new or different kind of
[structure, system, and components (SSCs)], accident from any accident previously
of amendment to facility operating
including any equipment whose failure could evaluated? license or combined license, as
initiate an accident or a failure of a fission Response: No. applicable, proposed no significant
product barrier. No analysis is adversely The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber hazards consideration determination,
affected by the proposed changes. Security Plan Implementation Schedule is and opportunity for a hearing in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54768/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices 54621
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Nebraska Public Power District, Docket Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
Licenses and TSs. No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Effective date: As of the date of
Date of initial notice in Federal Nemaha County, Nebraska issuance and shall be implemented
Register: September 29, 2015 (80 FR Date of amendment request: March within 60 days from the date of
58518). The supplemental letters dated 11, 2016. issuance.
January 21, and July 15, 2016, provided Brief description of amendment: The Amendment No.: 255. A publicly-
additional information that clarified the amendment revised Technical available version is in ADAMS under
application, did not expand the scope of Specification (TS) 1.1, ‘‘Definitions, Accession No. ML16146A749;
the application as originally noticed, Shutdown Margin (SDM)’’ consistent documents related to this amendment
and did not change the staff’s original with the proposed changes in Technical are listed in the Safety Evaluation
proposed no significant hazards Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change enclosed with the amendment.
consideration determination as Traveler, TSTF–535, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Renewed Facility Operating License
published in the Federal Register. Shutdown Margin [SDM] Definition to No. DPR–46: The amendment revised
The Commission’s related evaluation Address Advanced Fuel Designs.’’ Prior the Facility Operating License and TSs.
of the amendment is contained in a to the amendment, the plant’s SDM (i.e., Date of initial notice in Federal
safety evaluation dated July 28, 2016. the amount of reactivity by which the Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR
No significant hazards consideration reactor is subcritical) was calculated 69712). The supplemental letter dated
comments received: No. using a shutdown moderator June 13, 2016, provided additional
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit information that clarified the
No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station (°F). This value was conservative for application, did not expand the scope of
(CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska standard fuel designs. However, new, the application as originally noticed,
Date of amendment request: August 6, advanced boiling-water reactor fuel and did not change the staff’s original
2015, as supplemented by letter dated designs can have a higher reactivity at proposed no significant hazards
March 17, 2016. moderator shutdown temperatures consideration determination as
Brief description of amendment: The above 68 °F. Therefore, the amendment published in the Federal Register.
amendment revised the Technical implemented TSTF–535, Revision 0, The Commission’s related evaluation
Specifications (TSs) to relocate the which modified the TSs to require the of the amendment is contained in a
reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure- SDM to be calculated at whatever Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016.
temperature (P–T) limits from the TS moderator temperature produces the No significant hazards consideration
limiting condition for operation to a maximum reactivity with moderator comments received: No.
new licensee-controlled document—the temperature greater than or equal to NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC,
Pressure and Temperature Limits 68 °F. Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold
Report. The actual RCS P–T limit Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
curves, as currently established in the Effective date: As of the date of Date of amendment request: July 30,
CNS TS, and all associated parameters, issuance and shall be implemented 2015.
which are valid through 32 effective full within 60 days from the date of Brief description of amendment: The
power years of facility operation, are not issuance. amendment revised Technical
affected by the TS amendment. Amendment No.: 254. A publicly- Specification (TS) Sections 1.1,
Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. available version is in ADAMS under ‘‘Definitions,’’ 3.4.9, ‘‘[Reactor Coolant
Effective date: As of the date of Accession No. ML16119A433; System (RCS)] Pressure and
issuance and shall be implemented documents related to this amendment Temperature (P/T) Limits,’’ and 5.6,
within 60 days from the date of are listed in the Safety Evaluation ‘‘Reporting Requirements,’’ by replacing
issuance. enclosed with the amendment. the existing reactor vessel heatup and
Amendment No.: 256. A publicly- Renewed Facility Operating License cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit
available version is in ADAMS under No. DPR–46: The amendment revised curves with references to a P/T Limits
Accession No. ML16158A022; the Facility Operating License and TSs. Report (PTLR).
documents related to this amendment Date of initial notice in Federal Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
are listed in the Safety Evaluation Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21600). Effective date: As of the date of
enclosed with the amendment. The Commission’s related evaluation issuance and shall be implemented
Renewed Facility Operating License of the amendment is contained in a within 60 days of the date of issuance.
No. DPR–46: The amendment revised Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016. Amendment No.: 294. A publicly-
the Facility Operating License and TSs. No significant hazards consideration available version is in ADAMS under
Date of initial notice in Federal comments received: No. Accession No. ML16180A086;
Register: November 3, 2015 (80 FR Nebraska Public Power District, Docket documents related to this amendment
67802). The supplemental letter dated No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, are listed in the Safety Evaluation
March 17, 2016, provided additional Nemaha County, Nebraska enclosed with the amendment.
information that clarified the Date of amendment request: Renewed Facility Operating License
application, did not expand the scope of September 8, 2015, as supplemented by No. DPR–49: The amendment revised
the application as originally noticed, letter dated June 13, 2016. the Operating License and TSs.
and did not change the NRC staff’s Brief description of amendment: The Date of initial notice in Federal
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
original proposed no significant hazards amendment replaced Technical Register: December 8, 2015 (80 FR
consideration determination as Specification (TS) Figure 4.1–1, ‘‘Site 76328). The supplemental by letters
published in the Federal Register. and Exclusion Area Boundaries and dated December 18, 2015, and February
The Commission’s related evaluation Low Population Zone,’’ with a text 19, March 11, and March 30, 2016,
of the amendment is contained in a description of the site in TS 4.1, ‘‘Site provided additional information that
Safety Evaluation July 25, 2016. Location.’’ In addition, typographical clarified the application, did not expand
No significant hazards consideration errors were corrected in Section 1.1, the scope of the application as originally
comments received: No. ‘‘Definitions.’’ noticed, and did not change the staff’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54768/page/12.svg)
![54622 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices
original proposed no significant hazards Facility Operating License No. NPF– Week of September 19, 2016—Tentative
consideration determination as 96: Amendment revised the Facility
Monday, September 19, 2016
published in the Federal Register. Operating License.
The Commission’s related evaluation Date of initial notice in Federal 9:00 a.m. Briefing on NRC Tribal
of the amendment is contained in a Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10682). Policy Statement (Public Meeting)
Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016. The Commission’s related evaluation (Contact: Michelle Ryan: 630–829–
No significant hazards consideration of the amendment is contained in a 9724).
comments received: No. Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016. This meeting will be webcast live at
Northern States Power Company— No significant hazards consideration the Web address http://www.nrc.gov/.
Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, comments received: No. * * * * *
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day The schedule for Commission
(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota of August, 2016. meetings is subject to change on short
Date of amendment request: For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. notice. For more information or to verify
September 2, 2015. Anne T. Boland, the status of meetings, contact Denise
Brief description of amendment: The Director, Division of Operating Reactor McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email
amendment revised Technical Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov.
Specification (TS) Surveillance Regulation. * * * * *
Requirement 3.5.1.3.b to require [FR Doc. 2016–19213 Filed 8–15–16; 8:45 am] The NRC Commission Meeting
verification that the MNGP alternate BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Schedule can be found on the Internet
nitrogen system required pressure be
at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
greater than or equal to 1060 psig
public-meetings/schedule.html.
[pounds per square inch gauge] instead NUCLEAR REGULATORY
of greater than or equal to 410 psig as COMMISSION * * * * *
previously stated. The NRC provides reasonable
[NRC–2016–0001] accommodation to individuals with
Date of issuance: August 1, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of disabilities where appropriate. If you
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice need a reasonable accommodation to
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days. DATES: August 15, 22, 29, September 5, participate in these public meetings, or
Amendment No.: 190. A publicly- 12, 19, 2016. need this meeting notice or the
available version is in ADAMS under transcript or other information from the
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Accession No. ML16196A303; public meetings in another format (e.g.
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
documents related to this amendment braille, large print), please notify
Maryland.
are listed in the Safety Evaluation Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
STATUS: Public and Closed.
enclosed with the amendment. Program Manager, at 301–287–0739, by
Renewed Facility Operating License Week of August 15, 2016 videophone at 240–428–3217, or by
No. DPR–22. Amendment revised the There are no meetings scheduled for email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@
Renewed Facility Operating License and the week of August 15, 2016. nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for
TSs. reasonable accommodation will be
Date of initial notice in Federal Week of August 22, 2016—Tentative made on a case-by-case basis.
Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR There are no meetings scheduled for * * * * *
61483). the week of August 22, 2016. Members of the public may request to
The Commission’s related evaluation receive this information electronically.
of the amendment is contained in a Week of August 29, 2016—Tentative
If you would like to be added to the
Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2016. There are no meetings scheduled for distribution, please contact the Nuclear
No significant hazards consideration the week of August 29, 2016. Regulatory Commission, Office of the
comments received: No. Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–
Week of September 5, 2016—Tentative
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 415–1969), or email
50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, There are no meetings scheduled for Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or
Rhea County, Tennessee the week of September 5, 2016. Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.
Date of amendment request: Week of September 12, 2016—Tentative Dated: August 10, 2016.
December 31, 2015. Denise L. McGovern,
Monday, September 12, 2016
Brief description of amendment: The Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
amendment revised the license to 1:30 p.m. NRC All Employees Meeting
[FR Doc. 2016–19557 Filed 8–12–16; 11:15 am]
permit use of the Fuel Rod Performance (Public Meeting), Marriott Bethesda
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
and Design 4 Thermal Conductivity North Hotel, 5701 Marinelli Road,
Degradation (PAD4TCD) computer Rockville, MD 20852.
program for the second cycle of plant Tuesday, September 13, 2016 NUCLEAR REGULATORY
operation. COMMISSION
Date of issuance: July 25, 2016. 2:00 p.m. Briefing on NRC
Effective date: As of the date of International Activities (Closed—
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
issuance and shall be implemented Ex. 1 & 9). [Docket Nos. 52–018 and 52–019; NRC–
2008–0170]
within 14 days of issuance. Friday, September 16, 2016
Amendment No.: 1. A publicly- Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; William
available version is in ADAMS under 9:00 a.m. Briefing on Fee Process (Public
Meeting), (Contact: Michele Kaplan: States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1
Accession No. ML16174A354; and 2
documents related to this amendment 301–415–5256).
are listed in the Safety Evaluation This meeting will be webcast live at AGENCY:Nuclear Regulatory
enclosed with the amendment. the Web address http://www.nrc.gov/. Commission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54768/page/13.svg)
Document Created: 2016-08-16 03:20:28
Document Modified: 2016-08-16 03:20:28
| 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 September 15, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 17, 2016. | |
| Contact | Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 54610 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR