61476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

questions about NRC dockets to Carol violated 10 CFR 50.59, ‘‘Changes, tests, subpart,’’ of the Commission’s Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; and experiments,’’ when the SGs for regulations. email: [email protected]. For SONGS, Units 2 and 3, were replaced in The NRC will file a copy of the DD technical questions, contact the 2010 and 2011 without a license with the Secretary of the Commission individual listed in the FOR FURTHER amendment request. for the Commission’s review in INFORMATION CONTACT section of this The NRC sent a copy of the proposed accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. As document. DD to the petitioner and the licensee for provided by this regulation, the revised • NRC’s Agencywide Documents comment on February 27, 2015 DD will constitute the final action of the Access and Management System (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15020A121 Commission 25 days after the date of the (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- and ML15020A165, respectively). The decision unless the Commission, on its available documents online in the petitioner and the licensee were asked own motion, institutes a review of the ADAMS Public Documents collection at to provide comments within 30 days on DD in that time. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ any part of the proposed DD that was Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day adams.html. To begin the search, select considered to be erroneous or any issues of October 2015. ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then in the petition that were not addressed. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Comments were received from the William M. Dean, Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, petitioner and were addressed in an please contact the NRC’s Public Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor attachment to the final DD. The licensee Regulation. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at had no comments on the proposed DD; [FR Doc. 2015–25856 Filed 10–9–15; 8:45 am] 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by however, the licensee did provide a email to [email protected]. The response to the petitioner’s comments. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P ADAMS accession number for each The NRC staff reviewed the response document referenced (if that document from the licensee and determined that NUCLEAR REGULATORY is available in ADAMS) is provided the because the licensee’s comments are COMMISSION first time that a document is referenced. direct rebuttals to the petitioner’s • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and comments and raised no concerns with [NRC–2015–0236] purchase copies of public documents at the proposed DD, that no changes to the the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One final DD were required as a result of the Biweekly Notice: Applications and White Flint North, 11555 Rockville licensee’s comments. Amendments to Facility Operating Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. On July 28, 2015, the NRC issued a Licenses and Combined Licenses FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DD regarding this matter. Subsequently, Involving No Significant Hazards Thomas Wengert, Office of Nuclear the NRC identified portions of this DD Considerations Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear that required clarification regarding the Regulatory Commission, Washington, scope of the petition and the decision. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– Accordingly, Section I of the DD is Commission. 4037, email: [email protected]. revised to clarify that the scope of the ACTION: Biweekly notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is petition, which was referred by the SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) hereby given that the Director, Office of Commission to the NRC staff in of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued Memorandum and Order CLI–12–20, amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear a revision to a DD dated July 28, 2015 includes the underlying question of Regulatory Commission (NRC) is (ADAMS Accession No. ML15183A164), whether the licensee violated 10 CFR publishing this regular biweekly notice. on a portion of an intervention and 50.59 when it replaced the SGs at The Act requires the Commission to hearing request petition filed by the SONGS, Units 2 and 3, without first publish notice of any amendments petitioner on June 18, 2012 (ADAMS obtaining a license amendment. Section issued, or proposed to be issued, and Accession No. ML12171A409), that was II addresses the NRC staff’s resolution of grants the Commission the authority to referred to the NRC’s Office of the this underlying question; and the issue and make immediately effective Executive Director for Operations by the conclusion in Section III is updated to any amendment to an operating license Commission in its November 8, 2013, reflect the resolution of this underlying or combined license, as applicable, Memorandum and Order CLI–12–20 question. Section II is also revised to upon a determination by the (ADAMS Accession No. ML12313A118), clarify additional NRC staff activities Commission that such amendment for consideration as a petition under associated with the SONGS SG event involves no significant hazards section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of that support the conclusion regarding consideration, notwithstanding the Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Request whether the licensee violated 10 CFR pendency before the Commission of a for action under this part.’’ The petition 50.59 by replacing the SGs without a request for a hearing from any person. was supplemented on November 16, license amendment. This biweekly notice includes all 2012; January 16, 2013; and February 6, As stated in the DD, the Director of notices of amendments issued, or 2013 (ADAMS Accession Nos. the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation proposed to be issued from September ML12325A748, ML13029A643, and has determined that the requests for the 15 to September 28, 2015. The last ML13109A075, respectively). NRC to order the licensee to submit a The petitioner requested that the NRC license amendment application for the biweekly notice was published on order SCE to submit a license design and installation of the SONGS, September 29, 2015. amendment application for the design Units 2 and 3, replacement SGs and to DATES: Comments must be filed by and installation of the SONGS, Units 2 suspend SCE’s licenses until they are November 12, 2015. A request for a and 3, replacement steam generators amended be denied. The reasons for this hearing must be filed by December 14, (SGs) and to suspend SCE’s licenses decision are explained in the DD (DD– 2015. until they are amended. 15–07; ADAMS Accession No. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments As the basis of the request, the ML15267A158) pursuant to 10 CFR by any of the following methods (unless petitioner asserted that the licensee 2.206, ‘‘Requests for action under this this document describes a different

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61477

method for submitting comments on a application date, and subject in your Commission may issue the amendment specific subject): comment submission. prior to the expiration of the 30-day • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to The NRC cautions you not to include comment period should circumstances http://www.regulations.gov and search identifying or contact information that change during the 30-day comment for Docket ID NRC–2015–0236. Address you do not want to be publicly period such that failure to act in a questions about NRC dockets to Carol disclosed in your comment submission. timely way would result, for example in Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; The NRC posts all comment derating or shutdown of the facility. email: [email protected]. submissions at http:// Should the Commission take action • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, www.regulations.gov as well as entering prior to the expiration of either the Office of Administration, Mail Stop: the comment submissions into ADAMS. comment period or the notice period, it OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear The NRC does not routinely edit will publish in the Federal Register a Regulatory Commission, Washington, comment submissions to remove notice of issuance. Should the DC 20555-0001. identifying or contact information. Commission make a final No Significant For additional direction on obtaining If you are requesting or aggregating Hazards Consideration Determination, information and submitting comments, comments from other persons for any hearing will take place after see ‘‘Obtaining Information and submission to the NRC, then you should issuance. The Commission expects that inform those persons not to include Submitting Comments’’ in the the need to take this action will occur identifying or contact information that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of very infrequently. they do not want to be publicly this document. disclosed in their comment submission. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Your request should state that the NRC and Petition for Leave To Intervene Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear does not routinely edit comment Within 60 days after the date of Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear submissions to remove such information publication of this notice, any person(s) Regulatory Commission, Washington DC before making the comment whose interest may be affected by this 20555-0001; telephone: 301–415–1384, submissions available to the public or action may file a request for a hearing email: [email protected]. entering the comment submissions into and a petition to intervene with respect SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADAMS. to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance I. Obtaining Information and combined license. Requests for a of Amendments to Facility Operating Submitting Comments hearing and a petition for leave to Licenses and Combined Licenses and intervene shall be filed in accordance A. Obtaining Information Proposed No Significant Hazards with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules Consideration Determination Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 0236 when contacting the NRC about The Commission has made a part 2. Interested person(s) should the availability of information for this proposed determination that the consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, action. You may obtain publicly- following amendment requests involve which is available at the NRC’s PDR, available information related to this no significant hazards consideration. located at One White Flint North, Room action by any of the following methods: Under the Commission’s regulations in O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The http://www.regulations.gov and search Regulations (10 CFR), this means that NRC’s regulations are accessible for Docket ID NRC–2015–0236. operation of the facility in accordance electronically from the NRC Library on • NRC’s Agencywide Documents with the proposed amendment would the NRC’s Web site at http:// Access and Management System not (1) involve a significant increase in www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- the probability or consequences of an collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing available documents online in the accident previously evaluated, or (2) or petition for leave to intervene is filed ADAMS Public Documents collection at create the possibility of a new or by the above date, the Commission or a http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ different kind of accident from any presiding officer designated by the adams.html. To begin the search, select accident previously evaluated; or (3) Commission or by the Chief ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents‘‘ and then involve a significant reduction in a Administrative Judge of the Atomic select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS margin of safety. The basis for this Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, proposed determination for each rule on the request and/or petition; and please contact the NRC’s Public amendment request is shown below. the Secretary or the Chief Document Room (PDR) reference staff at The Commission is seeking public Administrative Judge of the Atomic 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by comments on this proposed Safety and Licensing Board will issue a email to [email protected]. The determination. Any comments received notice of a hearing or an appropriate ADAMS accession number for each within 30 days after the date of order. document referenced (if it is available in publication of this notice will be As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a ADAMS) is provided the first time that considered in making any final petition for leave to intervene shall set it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY determination. forth with particularity the interest of INFORMATION section Normally, the Commission will not the petitioner in the proceeding, and • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and issue the amendment until the how that interest may be affected by the purchase copies of public documents at expiration of 60 days after the date of results of the proceeding. The petition the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One publication of this notice. The should specifically explain the reasons White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Commission may issue the license why intervention should be permitted Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. amendment before expiration of the 60- with particular reference to the day period provided that its final following general requirements: (1) The B. Submitting Comments determination is that the amendment name, address, and telephone number of Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– involves no significant hazards the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 0236, facility name, unit number(s), consideration. In addition, the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

right under the Act to be made a party will issue an appropriate order or rule consideration, which is presented to the proceeding; (3) the nature and under 10 CFR part 2. below: extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 1. Does the proposed amendment involve property, financial, or other interest in a significant increase in the probability or the proceeding; and (4) the possible Petitions for leave to intervene must consequences of any accident previously effect of any decision or order which be filed no later than 60 days from the evaluated? may be entered in the proceeding on the date of publication of this notice. Response: No. requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The Requests for hearing, petitions for leave The post-modification configuration of the petition must also identify the specific to intervene, and motions for leave to offsite 345 [kilovolt (kV)] transmission contentions which the requestor/ file new or amended contentions that system (four lines separately supported and petitioner seeks to have litigated at the are filed after the 60-day deadline will SLOD disabled) improves overall grid proceeding. not be entertained absent a reliability and continues to meet the Each contention must consist of a determination by the presiding officer requirements for two independent sources of specific statement of the issue of law or that the filing demonstrates good cause offsite power (GDC–17). Therefore, the post- fact to be raised or controverted. In by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR modification configuration does not 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). significantly increase the probability or addition, the requestor/petitioner shall consequences of a loss of offsite power event. provide a brief explanation of the bases For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, Likewise, the associated proposed changes to for the contention and a concise the MPS2 and MPS3 FSARs to document the statement of the alleged facts or expert see the application for amendment revised 345 kV transmission line tower opinion which support the contention which is available for public inspection design and disabling of SLOD, do not and on which the requestor/petitioner in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For increase the probability or consequences of intends to rely in proving the contention additional direction on accessing an accident previously evaluated in the at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner information related to this document, FSARs. must also provide references to those see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and The grid (offsite power) is by design, the specific sources and documents of Submitting Comments’’ section of this preferred power source for the affected units. which the petitioner is aware and on document. The grid provides a reliable source of power to MPS2 and MPS3 while the units are at which the requestor/petitioner intends Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., to rely to establish those facts or expert power, in the event of unit trips, and when Docket Nos. 50–336 and 50–423, the units are shut down for maintenance. opinion. The petition must include Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 New TRM requirements are proposed that sufficient information to show that a and 3 (MPS2 and MPS3), New London will maintain adequate defense in depth to genuine dispute exists with the County, Connecticut ensure grid reliability and stability are applicant on a material issue of law or preserved. fact. Contentions shall be limited to Date of amendment request: June 30, A loss of offsite power event is an matters within the scope of the 2015. A publicly-available version is in anticipated operational occurrence. The amendment under consideration. The ADAMS under Accession No. proposed changes do not significantly contention must be one which, if ML15183A022. increase the probability of this event. proven, would entitle the requestor/ Description of amendment request: Additionally, as described in Chapter 14 petitioner to relief. A requestor/ The amendments would revise the (MPS2) and Chapter 15 (MPS3), several petitioner who fails to satisfy these MPS2 and MPS3 Final Safety Analysis events are assumed to occur coincident with requirements with respect to at least one Reports (FSARs) to: (1) Delete the a loss of offsite power. Sufficient onsite information pertaining to the severe line power sources are available to mitigate these contention will not be permitted to events and ensure the consequences of the participate as a party. outage detection (SLOD) special protection system; (2) update the existing analyses for these events remain Those permitted to intervene become bounding. parties to the proceeding, subject to any description of the tower structures The proposed new TRM requirements for limitations in the order granting leave to associated with the four offsite offsite line power sources will not change the intervene, and have the opportunity to transmission lines feeding Millstone plant design or design requirements. The participate fully in the conduct of the Power Station; and (3) describe how the design criteria for the offsite power system hearing. current offsite power source remain unchanged. Therefore, the safety If a hearing is requested, the configuration and design satisfies the analyses as documented in the MPS2 and Commission will make a final requirements of General Design Criteria MPS3 FSARs remain unchanged. Temporary determination on the issue of no (GDC)–17, ‘‘Electric Power Systems,’’ reductions in the number of offsite lines from significant hazards consideration. The and GDC–5, ‘‘Sharing of Structures, four to three, in accordance with the final determination will serve to decide Systems, and Components.’’ The proposed TRM action requirements, will not adversely affect offsite power system when the hearing is held. If the final amendments also request NRC approval availability in the event of a loss of either determination is that the amendment of a new Technical Requirements MPS2, MPS3, the largest other unit on the request involves no significant hazards Manual (TRM) requirement, ‘‘Offsite grid, or the most critical transmission line. consideration, the Commission may Line Power Sources,’’ for MPS2 and Use of the proposed TRM requirements will issue the amendment and make it MPS3. With one offsite transmission not cause an accident to occur and will not immediately effective, notwithstanding line nonfunctional, the TRM change how accident mitigation equipment is the request for a hearing. Any hearing requirement would allow 72 hours to operated. Allowing one offsite line to be held would take place after issuance of restore the nonfunctional line with a nonfunctional for up to 14 days does not the amendment. If the final provision to allow up to 14 days if increase the probability of any previously determination is that the amendment specific TRM action requirements are evaluated accidents. request involves a significant hazards Therefore, the proposed changes to the met. offsite 345 kV transmission system (four lines consideration, then any hearing held Basis for proposed no significant separately supported and SLOD disabled) would take place before the issuance of hazards consideration determination: and proposed new TRM requirements does any amendment unless the Commission As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the not significantly increase the probability or finds an imminent danger to the health licensee has provided its analysis of the consequences of an accident previously or safety of the public, in which case it issue of no significant hazards evaluated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61479

2. Does the proposed amendment create events are assumed to occur coincident with provisions for as-found and as-left calibration the possibility of a new or different kind of a loss of offsite power. Sufficient onsite tolerances. The proposed TS changes serve to accident from any previously evaluated? power sources are available to mitigate these further ensure the Reactor Trip RCP under- Response: No. events and ensure the consequences of the frequency and under-voltage trip The proposed amendments do not change existing analyses for these events remain instrumentation will properly function as the design function or operation of the offsite bounding. credited in the safety analyses. The proposed power system and do not affect the offsite The proposed amendments do not affect changes do not alter any assumptions power systems ability to perform its design the assumptions in the safety analyses or the previously made in the radiological function. The proposed amendments do not ability to safely shutdown the reactors and consequences evaluations nor do they affect conflict with the design criteria, codes, or mitigate accident conditions. Station mitigation of the radiological consequences standards committed to in the licensing structures, systems, and components will of an accident previously evaluated. The basis. The existing codes and standards, as continue to be able to mitigate the design proposed TS changes do not affect the they apply to the onsite emergency power basis accidents as assumed in the safety probability of accident initiation. systems, remain unchanged. The design analyses and ensure proper operation of In summary, the proposed changes will not criteria for the offsite power system remain accident mitigation equipment. In addition, involve any increase in the probability or unchanged. Therefore, the safety analyses as the proposed amendment will not affect consequences of an accident previously documented in the MPS2 and MPS3 FSARs equipment design or operation of station evaluated remain unchanged. structures, systems, and components and 2. Does the proposed amendment create No credible new failure mechanisms, there are no changes being made to the safety the possibility of a new or different kind of malfunctions, or accident initiators not limits or safety system settings required by accident from any accident previously considered in the design and licensing basis technical specifications. evaluated? are created by the proposed amendment. The Response: No. Therefore, the proposed amendments will offsite power system is assumed to be The proposed TS changes involve lowering not result in a significant reduction in a available during several FSAR Chapter 14 the existing RCP under-voltage ALLOWABLE margin of safety. (MPS2) and Chapter 15 (MPS3) events. The VALUE and adopting TSTF–493 provisions new TRM requirements would allow 72 The NRC staff has reviewed the for as-found and as-left calibration hours to restore a nonfunctional line, and up licensee’s analysis and, based on this tolerances. No new accident scenarios, to 14 days to restore a nonfunctional line if review, it appears that the three failure mechanisms, or single failures are specific TRM action requirements are met. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are introduced as a result of any of the proposed Use of these TRM requirements does not changes. impact offsite power availability and does satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The Reactor Trip System is not an accident not create the possibility for a new or proposes to determine that the initiator. No changes to the overall manner in different kind of accident from any amendment request involves no which the plant is operated are being previously evaluated. Temporary reductions significant hazards consideration. proposed. in the number of offsite lines from four to Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Therefore, the proposed changes will not three, in accordance with the proposed TRM Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion create the possibility of a new or different requirements, will continue to ensure offsite Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar kind of accident from any accident power system availability in the event of a Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. previously evaluated. loss of either MPS2, MPS3, the largest other NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin Beasley. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve unit on the grid, or the most critical a significant reduction in a margin of safety? transmission line. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Response: No. The proposed amendments have no Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Margin of safety is related to the adverse effect on plant operation or accident Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, confidence in the ability of the fission mitigation equipment. The response of the product barriers to perform their intended plants and the operators following a design Mecklenburg County, North Carolina functions. These barriers include the fuel basis accident will not be different. In Date of amendment request: July 9, cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure addition, the proposed amendments do not 2015. A publicly-available version is in boundary, and the containment barriers. The create the possibility of a new failure mode ADAMS under Accession No. proposed TS changes serve to ensure proper associated with any equipment or personnel ML15198A151. operation of the Reactor Trip RCP under- failures. frequency and under-voltage trip Therefore, the proposed amendments will Description of amendment request: instrumentation and that the instrumentation not create the possibility of a new or different The amendments would change the will properly function as credited in the kind of accident from any accident reactor coolant pump (RCP) under- safety analyses. The proposed TS changes previously evaluated. frequency trip setpoint Allowable Value will not have any effect on the margin of 3. Does the proposed amendment involve (AV) and add footnotes. The proposed safety of fission product barriers. No accident a significant reduction in the margin of license amendment request affects mitigating equipment will be adversely safety? Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, impacted as a result of the modification. Response: No. ‘‘Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,’’ Therefore, existing safety margins will be The post-modification configuration of the preserved. None of the proposed changes will offsite 345 kV transmission system (four lines for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 involve a significant reduction in a margin of separately supported and SLOD disabled) and 2. safety. improves overall grid reliability and Basis for proposed no significant continues to meet the requirements for two hazards determination: As required by The NRC staff has reviewed the independent sources of offsite power (GDC– 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has licensee’s analysis and, based on this 17). Likewise, the addition of TRM provided its analysis of the issue of no review, it appears that the three requirements that limit the unavailability of significant hazards consideration, which standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are offsite lines provides acceptable assurance is presented below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff that line outages will not result in a proposes to determine that the significant reduction to grid stability and 1. Does the proposed amendment involve amendment request involves no hence also to the margin of safety. a significant increase in the probability or significant hazards consideration. consequences of an accident previously The offsite power systems are assumed to Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, be available during several FSAR Chapter 14 evaluated? (MPS2) and Chapter 15 (MPS3) events. The Response: No. Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy loss of the offsite power system is an The proposed TS changes involve lowering Corporation, 526 South Church Street— anticipated operational occurrence. the existing RCP under-voltage ALLOWABLE EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. Additionally, as described in Chapter 14 VALUE and adopting [Technical NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. (MPS2) and Chapter 15 (MPS3), several Specification Task Force (TSTF)–493] Pascarelli.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket The changes proposed do not affect the CNS, MNS or ONS. However, the analysis Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba precursors for fuel handling-type accidents demonstrates that the resultant doses are Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York analyzed in Chapter 15 of the CNS, MNS, or within the appropriate acceptance criteria. County, South Carolina; Docket Nos. ONS UFSARs. The probability remains The margin of safety, as described by 10 CFR unchanged since the accident analyses 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183, has been 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear performed and discussed in the basis for the maintained. Furthermore, the assumptions Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg UFSAR changes, involve no change to a and input used in the gap release and dose County, North Carolina; and Docket system, structure, or component that affects consequences calculations are conservative. Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, initiating events for any UFSAR Chapter 15 These conservative assumptions ensure that Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and accident evaluated. the radiation doses calculated pursuant to 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Therefore, the proposed amendment does Regulatory Guide 1.183 and cited in this not involve a significant increase in the license amendment requires are the upper Date of amendment request: July 15, probability or consequences of an accident bounds to radiological consequences of the 2015. A publicly-available version is previously analyzed. fuel handling-type accidents analyzed. The available at ADAMS Accession No. 2. Does the proposed amendment create analysis shows that with increased gap ML15196A093. the possibility of a new or different kind of release fractions accounted for in the dose Description of amendment request: accident from any accident previously consequences calculations there is margin evaluated? between the offsite radiation doses calculated The proposed amendments would Response: No. revise the facilities Updated Final Safety and the dose limits of 10 CFR 50.67 and The proposed change involves using gap acceptance criteria of Regulatory Guide Analysis Reports (UFSARs) to provide release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods 1.183. The proposed change will not degrade gap release fractions for high-burnup (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed the plant protective boundaries, will not fuel rods that exceed the linear heat the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table cause a release of fission products to the generation rate limit detailed in Table 3 3, Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Increased gap public and will not degrade the performance of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, release fractions were determined and of any structures, systems and components ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source Terms accounted for in the dose analysis for CNS, important to safety. for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at MNS, and ONS. The dose consequences Therefore, the proposed change does not reported in each site’s UFSAR were Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ July 2000 involve a significant reduction in a margin of reanalyzed for fuel handling-type accidents safety. (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792). only. Dose consequences were not reanalyzed Basis for proposed no significant for other non-fuel-handling accidents since The NRC staff has reviewed the hazards consideration determination: no fuel rod that is predicted to enter licensee’s analysis and, based on this As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) will review, it appears that the three licensee has provided its analysis of the be permitted to operate beyond the limits of standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are issue of no significant hazards RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff consideration, which is presented The proposed change does not involve the proposes to determine that the addition or modification of any plant below: amendment request involves no equipment. The proposed change has the significant hazards consideration. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve potential to affect future core designs for Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, a significant increase in the probability or CNS, MNS, and ONS. However, the impact consequences of an accident previously will not be beyond the standard function Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy evaluated? capabilities of the equipment. The proposed Corporation, 526 South Church Street— Response: No. change involves using gap release fractions EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. The proposed change involves using gap that would allow high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods greater than 54 GWD/MTU) to exceed the 6.3 Pascarelli. (i.e., greater than 54 [gigawatt days per metric kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, ton unit (GWD/MTU)] that exceed the 6.3 Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Accounting for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., [kiloWatt per foot (kW/ft)] linear heat these new gap release fractions in the dose Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick generation rate (LHGR) limit detailed in analysis for CNS, MNS, and ONS does not Nuclear Power Plant (JAF), Oswego Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Increased create the possibility of a new accident. County, New York gap release fractions were determined and Therefore, the proposed change does no Date of amendment request: August accounted for in the dose analysis for create the possibility of a new or different Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and kind of accident from any accident 20, 2015. A publicly-available version is 2; McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 previously evaluated. in ADAMS under Accession No. and 2; and Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), 3. Does the proposed amendment involve ML15232A761. Units 1, 2, and 3. The dose consequence a significant reduction in the margin of Description of amendment request: reported in each site’s Updated Final Safety safety? The amendment would revise Technical Analysis Report (UFSAR) were reanalyzed Response: No. Specification (TS) 5.5.6, ‘‘Primary for fuel handling-type accidents only. Dose The proposed change involves using gap Containment Leak Rate Testing consequences were not reanalyzed for other release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods Program,’’ to allow permanent extension non-fuel-handling accidents since no fuel rod (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed of the Type A Primary Containment that is predicted to enter departure from the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) interval nuclear boiling (DNB) will be permitted to 3, Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Increased gap operate beyond the limits of RG 1.183, Table release fractions were determined and to 15 years and to allow extension of 3, Footnote 11. The current NRC accounted for in the dose analysis for CNS, Type C Local Leak Rate Test (LLRT) requirements, as described in 10 CFR 50.67, MNS, and ONS. The dose consequences testing interval up to 75 months. specifies dose acceptance criteria in terms of reported in each site’s UFSAR were Basis for proposed no significant Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE). The reanalyzed for fuel handling-type accidents hazards consideration determination: revised dose consequence analysis for fuel only. Dose consequences were not reanalyzed As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the handling-type events at CNS, MNS, and ONS for other non-fuel-handling accidents since licensee has provided its analysis of the meet the applicable TEDE dose acceptance no fuel rod that is predicted to enter issue of no significant hazards criteria (specified also in RG 1.183). A slight departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) will consideration, which is presented increase in dose consequences is exhibited. be permitted to operate beyond the limits of However, the increase is not significant and RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11. below: the new TEDE results are below regulatory The proposed change has the potential for 1. Does the proposed amendment involve acceptance criteria. an increased postulated accident dose at a significant increase in the probability or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61481

consequences of an accident previously containment combined with the containment The proposed change involves only the evaluated? inspections performed in accordance with extension of the interval between Type A Response: No. [American Society of Mechanical Engineers containment leak rate tests and Type C tests The proposed amendment to the TS (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] for JAF. The proposed surveillance interval involves the extension of the JAF Type A Section XI, the Maintenance Rule, and TS extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT containment test interval to 15 years and the requirements serve to provide a high degree Interval and the 75-month Type C test extension of the Type C test interval to 75 of assurance that the containment would not interval currently authorized within [Nuclear months. The current Type A test interval of degrade in a manner that is detectable only Energy Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision 3–A 120 months (10 years) would be extended on by a Type A test. Based on the above, the [‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years proposed extensions do not significantly Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR Part 50, from the last Type A test. The current Type increase the consequences of an accident Appendix J,’’ July 2012 (ADAMS Accession C test interval of 60 months for selected previously evaluated. No. ML12221A202)]. Industry experience components would be extended on a The proposed amendment also deletes supports the conclusion that Type B and C performance basis to no longer than 75 exceptions previously granted to allow one- testing detects a large percentage of months. Extensions of up to nine months time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for containment leakage paths and that the (total maximum interval of 84 months for JAF. These exceptions were for activities that percentage of containment leakage paths that Type C tests) are permissible only for non- would have already taken place by the time are detected only by Type A testing is small. routine emergent conditions. The proposed this amendment is approved; therefore, their The containment inspections performed in extension does not involve either a physical deletion is solely an administrative action accordance with ASME Section Xl, TS and change to the plant or a change in the manner that has no effect on any component and no the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high in which the plant is operated or controlled. impact on how the unit is operated. degree of assurance that the containment The containment is designed to provide an Therefore, the proposed change does not would not degrade in a manner that is essentially leak tight barrier against the result in a significant increase in the detectable only by Type A testing. The uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the probability or consequences of an accident combination of these factors ensures that the environment for postulated accidents. As previously evaluated. margin of safety in the plant safety analysis such, the containment and the testing 2. Does the proposed change create the is maintained. The design, operation, testing requirements invoked to periodically possibility of a new or different kind of methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, accident from any accident previously demonstrate the integrity of the containment B, and C containment leakage tests specified evaluated? exist to ensure the plant’s ability to mitigate in applicable codes and standards would Response: No. the consequences of an accident, and do not continue to be met, with the acceptance of The proposed amendment to the TS involve the prevention or identification of this proposed change, since these are not involves the extension of the JAF Type A any precursors of an accident. The change in containment test interval to 15 years and the affected by changes to the Type A and Type dose risk for changing the Type A test extension of the Type C test interval to 75 C test intervals. frequency from three-per-ten years to once- months. The containment and the testing The proposed amendment also deletes per-fifteen-years, measured as an increase to requirements to periodically demonstrate the exceptions previously granted to allow one the total integrated plant risk for those integrity of the containment exist to ensure time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for accident sequences influenced by Type A the plant’s ability to mitigate the JAF. These exceptions were for activities that testing, is 0.0087 person-[roentgen equivalent consequences of an accident do not involve would have already taken place by the time man (rem)]/year. [Electric Power Research any accident precursors or initiators. The this amendment is approved; therefore, their Institute (EPRI)] Report No. 1009325, proposed change does not involve a physical deletion is solely an administrative action Revision 2-A states that a very small change to the plant (i.e., no new or different and does not change how the unit is operated population dose is defined as an increase of and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction ≤ ≤ type of equipment will be installed) or a 1.0 person-rem per year, or 1% of the change to the manner in which the plant is in any margin of safety. total population dose, whichever is less operated or controlled. Therefore, the proposed change does not restrictive for the risk impact assessment of The proposed amendment also deletes involve a significant reduction in a margin of the extended ILRT intervals. The results of exceptions previously granted to allow one- safety. the risk assessment for this amendment meet time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for The NRC staff has reviewed the these criteria. Moreover, the risk impact for JAF. These exceptions were for activities that the ILRT extension when compared to other licensee’s analysis and, based on this would have already taken place by the time review, it appears that the three severe accident risks is negligible. Therefore, this amendment is approved; therefore, their this proposed extension does not involve a deletion is solely an administrative action standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are significant increase in the probability of an that does not result in any change in how the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident previously evaluated. unit is operated. proposes to determine that the As documented in NUREG–1493 Therefore, the proposed change does not amendment request involves no [‘‘Performance Based Containment Leak-Test create the possibility of a new or different significant hazards consideration. Program’’], Type B and C tests have kind of accident from any previously Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, identified a very large percentage of evaluated. Assistant General Counsel, Entergy containment leakage paths, and the 3. Does the proposed change involve a Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton percentage of containment leakage paths that significant reduction in a margin of safety? are detected only by Type A testing is very Response: No. Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. small. The JAF Type A test history supports The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.6 NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. this conclusion. involves the extension of the JAF Type A Beasley. The integrity of the containment is subject containment test interval to 15 years and the Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy to two types of failure mechanisms that can extension of the Type C test interval to 75 Resources, Inc.; South Mississippi be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and; (2) months for selected components. This time based. Activity based failure amendment does not alter the manner in Electric Power Association; and Entergy mechanisms are defined as degradation due which safety limits, limiting safety system set Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, to system and/or component modifications or points, or limiting conditions for operation Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 maintenance. Local leak rate test are determined. The specific requirements (GGNS), Claiborne County, Mississippi requirements and administrative controls and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Date of amendment request: June 29, such as configuration management and Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the procedural requirements for system degree of containment structural integrity 2015. A publicly-available version is in restoration ensure that containment integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the ADAMS under Accession No. is not degraded by plant modifications or plant safety analysis is maintained. The ML15180A376. maintenance activities. The design and overall containment leak rate limit specified Description of amendment request: construction requirements of the by TS is maintained. The amendment proposes a change to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

the GGNS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) change, the proposed change does not previously evaluated are not significantly Milestone 8 full implementation date as involve a significant reduction in a margin of increased. set forth in the CSP Implementation safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do not Schedule. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the involve a significant reduction in a margin of probability or consequences of an accident Basis for proposed no significant safety. previously evaluated. hazards consideration determination: The NRC staff has reviewed the 2. Do the proposed changes create the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards review, it appears that the three evaluated? consideration, which is presented standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Response: No. below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff No new or different accidents result from proposes to determine that the utilizing the proposed changes. The changes 1. Does the proposed change involve a do not involve a physical alteration of the significant increase in the probability or amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. plant (i.e., no new or different type of consequences of an accident previously equipment will be installed) or a change in evaluated? Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General Counsel— the methods governing normal plant Response: No. operation. In addition, the changes do not The proposed change to the CSP Legal, Nuclear and Environmental, impose any new or different requirements. Implementation Schedule is administrative Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola The changes do not alter assumptions made in nature. This change does not alter accident Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70113. in the safety analysis. The proposed changes analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. are consistent with the safety analysis affect the function of plant systems or the Exelon Generation Company, LLC, assumptions and current plant operating manner in which systems are operated, practice. maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Therefore, the proposed changes do not The proposed change does not require any Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, create the possibility of a new or different plant modifications which affect the New York kind of accident from any accident performance capability of the structures, previously evaluated. systems and components relied upon to Date of amendment request: June 4, 3. Does the proposed change involve a mitigate the consequences of postulated 2015. A publicly-available version is in significant reduction in a margin of safety? accidents and has no impact on the ADAMS under Accession No. Response: No. probability or consequences of an accident ML15166A075. The design, operation, testing methods, previously evaluated. Description of amendment request: Therefore, the proposed change does not and acceptance criteria for systems, The amendment would modify Ginna’s structures, and components, specified in involve a significant increase in the technical specifications (TS) by probability or consequences of an accident applicable codes and standards (or previously evaluated. relocating specific surveillance alternatives approved for use by the NRC) 2. Does the proposed change create the frequencies to a licensee-controlled will continue to be met as described in the possibility of a new or different kind of program with the implementation of plant licensing basis (including the final accident from any accident previously Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04–10, safety analysis report and bases to TS), since evaluated? [Rev. 1, ‘‘Risk-Informed Technical these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is Response: No. Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk- The proposed change to the CSP no impact to safety analysis acceptance Informed Method for Control of criteria as described in the plant licensing Implementation Schedule is administrative Surveillance Frequencies,’’ April 2007 in nature. This proposed change does not basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated alter accident analysis assumptions, add any (ADAMS Accession No. surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform initiators or affect the function of plant ML071360456)]. a probabilistic risk evaluation using the systems or the manner in which systems are Basis for proposed no significant guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04- operated, maintained, modified, tested, or hazards consideration determination: 10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the TS SFCP. inspected. The proposed change does not As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the NEI 04–10, Rev. 1, methodology provides require any plant modifications which affect licensee has provided its analysis of the reasonable acceptance guidelines and the performance capability of the structures, issue of no significant hazards methods for evaluating the risk increase of systems, and components relied upon to proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consideration, which is presented consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177 [‘‘An mitigate the consequences of postulated below: accidents and does not create the possibility Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed of a new or different kind of accident from 1. Do the proposed changes involve a Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications’’]. any accident previously evaluated. significant increase in the probability or Therefore, the proposed changes do not Therefore, the proposed change does not consequences of any accident previously involve a significant reduction in a margin of create the possibility of a new or different evaluated? safety. kind of accident from any accident Response: No. The NRC staff has reviewed the previously evaluated. The proposed changes relocate the licensee’s analysis and, based on this 3. Does the proposed change involve a specified frequencies for periodic significant reduction in a margin of safety? surveillance requirements to licensee control review, it appears that the three Response: No. under a new Surveillance Frequency Control standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Plant safety margins are established Program [SFCP]. Surveillance frequencies are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff through limiting conditions for operation, not an initiator to any accident previously proposes to determine that the limiting safety system settings, and safety evaluated. As a result, the probability of any amendment request involves no limits specified in the technical accident previously evaluated is not significant hazards consideration. specifications. The proposed change to the significantly increased. The systems and Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley CSP Implementation Schedule is components required by the technical Fewell, Senior Vice President, specifications for which the surveillance administrative in nature. In addition, the Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General milestone date delay for full implementation frequencies are relocated are still required to of the CSP has no substantive impact because be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, other measures have been taken which the surveillance requirements, and be LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, provide adequate protection during this capable of performing any mitigation IL 60555. period of time. Because there is no change to function assumed in the accident analysis. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. established safety margins as a result of this As a result, the consequences of any accident Beasley.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61483

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., the minimum load capacities and load limit proposes to determine that the Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. controls required for the manipulator crane amendment request involves no Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (SL–1 limits and relocate the requirements to the significant hazards consideration. and 2), St. Lucie County, Florida UFSAR, which will have no impact on any Attorney for licensee: William S. safety related structures, systems or Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Date of amendment request: March components. Once relocated to the UFSAR, 10, 2015. A publicly-available version is changes to establishing and maintaining Florida Power & Light Company, 700 in ADAMS under Accession No. communications between the control room Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno ML15084A141. and the refueling station and the minimum Beach, FL 33408–0420. Description of amendment request: load capacities and load limit controls NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. The amendments would remove required for the manipulator crane limits will be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR Northern States Power Company— Technical Specification (TS) Limiting 50.59. Minnesota Docket No. 50–263, Condition for Operation (LCO) 3/4.9.5, The proposed changes do not introduce Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, ‘‘Communications,’’ from the SL–1 and new modes of plant operation and do not Wright County, Minnesota 2 TSs; remove LCO 3/4.9.6, involve physical modifications to the plant Date of amendment request: ‘‘Manipulator Crane Operability,’’ from (no new or different type of equipment will September 2, 2015. A publicly-available the SL–1 TSs; and remove LCO 3/4.9.6, be installed). There are no changes in the method by which any safety related plant version is in ADAMS under Accession ‘‘Manipulator Crane,’’ from the SL–2 No. ML15246A530. TSs. Each of these TS requirements will structure, system, or component (SSC) performs its specified safety function. As Description of amendment request: be relocated to the Updated Final Safety such, the plant conditions for which the The proposed amendment would revise Analysis Report (UFSAR) for SL–1 and design basis accident analyses were Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.1, 2. performed remain valid. ‘‘ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling Basis for proposed no significant No new accident scenarios, transient System]—Operating,’’ to correct the hazards consideration determination: precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting current non-conservative value As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the single failures will be introduced as a result specified for minimum Alternate of the proposed changes. There will be no licensee has provided its analysis of the Nitrogen System pressure. The proposed issue of no significant hazards adverse effect or challenges imposed on any SSC as a result of the proposed changes. change would revise the TS surveillance consideration, which is presented requirement (SR) 3.5.1.3.b pressure limit below: Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different for determining operability of the 1. Does the proposed change involve a kind of accident from any previously Alternate Nitrogen System from greater significant increase in the probability or evaluated. than or equal to (≥) 410 pounds per consequences of an accident previously 3. Does the proposed change involve a square inch gauge (psig) to a corrected evaluated? significant reduction in a margin of safety? value of ≥1060 psig. Response: No. Response: No. Basis for proposed no significant The proposed changes act to remove the Margin of safety is related to confidence in hazards consideration determination: current necessity of establishing and the ability of the fission product barriers to maintaining communications between the perform their accident mitigation functions. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the control room and the refueling station and The proposed changes act to remove the licensee has provided its analysis of the the minimum load capacities and load limit current necessity of establishing and issue of no significant hazards controls required for the manipulator crane maintaining communications between the consideration, which is provided below: limits and relocate the requirements to the control room and the refueling station and 1. Does the proposed change involve a UFSAR, which will have no impact on any the minimum load capacities and load limit significant increase in the probability or safety related structures, systems or controls required for the manipulator crane consequences of an accident previously components. Once relocated to the UFSAR, limits and relocate the requirements to the evaluated? changes to establishing and maintaining UFSAR, which will have no impact on any Response: No. communications between the control room safety related structures, systems or The proposed change revises the TS SR for and the refueling station and the minimum components. Once relocated to the UFSAR, the purpose of restoring a value to be load capacities and load limit controls changes to establishing and maintaining consistent with the licensing basis. The required for the manipulator crane limits will communications between the control room proposed TS change does not introduce new be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR and the refueling station and the minimum equipment or new equipment operating 50.59. load capacities and load limit controls modes, nor does the proposed change alter The probability of occurrence of a required for the manipulator crane limits will existing system relationships. The proposed previously evaluated accident is not be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR change does not affect plant operation[.] increased because these changes do not 50.59. The proposed changes do not Further, the proposed change does not introduce any new potential accident physically alter any SSC. There will be no increase the likelihood of the malfunction of initiating conditions. The consequences of effect on those SSCs necessary to assure the any SSC [structure, system or component] or accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR accomplishment of protection functions. impact any analyzed accident. Consequently, are not affected because the ability of the There will be no impact on the overpower the probability of an accident previously components to perform their required limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio evaluated is not affected and there is no functions is not affected. (DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak significant increase in the consequences of Therefore, the proposed change does not cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), or any any accident previously evaluated. involve a significant increase in the other margin of safety. The applicable Therefore, the proposed change does not probability or consequences of an accident radiological dose consequence acceptance involve a significant increase in the previously evaluated. criteria will continue to be met. probability or consequences of an accident 2. Does the proposed change create the Therefore, the proposed changes do not previously evaluated. possibility of a new or different kind of involve a significant reduction in a margin of 2. Does the proposed change create the accident from any accident previously safety. possibility of a new or different kind of evaluated? The NRC staff has reviewed the accident from any accident previously Response: No. evaluated? The proposed changes act to remove the licensee’s analysis and, based on this Response: No. current necessity of establishing and review, it appears that the three The proposed change revises the TS SR for maintaining communications between the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the purpose of restoring a value to be control room and the refueling station and satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff consistent with the licensing basis. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

change does not involve a physical alteration proposed changes are based on Revision kind of accident from any accident to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of 2 of NRC-approved Technical previously evaluated. equipment will be installed) or a change in Specification Task Force (TSTF) 3. Does the proposed change involve a the methods governing normal plant Traveler TSTF–523, ‘‘Generic Letter significant reduction in a margin of safety? operations. The proposed change does not Response: No. alter assumptions made in the safety analysis 2008–01, Managing Gas Accumulation,’’ The proposed change revises or adds SRs for the components supplied by the Alternate dated February 21, 2013 (ADAMS that require verification that the ECCS, the Nitrogen System. Further, the proposed Accession No. ML13053A075). The NRC RHR/SDC System, the CS System, and the change does not introduce new accident staff issued a Notice of Availability for RCIC System are not rendered inoperable due initiators. TSTF–523, Revision 2, for plant-specific to accumulated gas and to provide Therefore, the proposed change does not adoption using the consolidated line allowances which permit performance of the create the possibility of a new or different item improvement process, in the revised verification. The proposed change kind of accident from any accident Federal Register on January 15, 2014 (79 clarifies requirements for management of gas previously evaluated. FR 2700). accumulation in order to ensure the subject 3. Does the proposed change involve a Basis for proposed no significant systems are capable of performing their significant reduction in a margin of safety? assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs Response: No. hazards consideration determination: are more comprehensive than the current SRs The proposed change revises the TS SR for As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the and will ensure that the assumptions of the the purpose of restoring a value to be licensee has provided its analysis of the safety analysis are protected. The proposed consistent with the licensing basis. The issue of no significant hazards change does not adversely affect any current proposed change does not alter the manner consideration, which is provided below: plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. in which safety limits, limiting safety system 1. Does the proposed change involve a settings, or limiting conditions for operation significant increase in the probability or Therefore, there are no changes being made are determined. The safety analysis consequences of an accident previously to any safety analysis assumptions, safety assumptions and acceptance criteria are not evaluated? limits or limiting safety system settings that affected by this change. Response: No. would adversely affect plant safety as a result Therefore, the proposed change does not The proposed change revises or adds of the proposed change. involve a significant reduction in the margin Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that require Therefore, the proposed change does not of safety. verification that the Emergency Core Cooling involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the Systems (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal licensee’s analysis and, based on this (RHR) System/Shutdown Cooling (SDC) The NRC staff has reviewed the review, it appears that the three System, the Containment Spray (CS) System, licensee’s analysis and, based on this and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are System are not rendered inoperable due to satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accumulated gas and to provide allowances standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are proposes to determine that the which permit performance of the revised satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff amendment request involves no verification. Gas accumulation in the subject proposes to determine that the significant hazards consideration. systems is not an initiator of any accident amendment request involves no Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, previously evaluated. As a result, the significant hazards consideration. Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy probability of any accident previously Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, evaluated is not significantly increased. The Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401. continue to be capable to perform their NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. assumed safety function and are not rendered Minneapolis, MN 55401. NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. Northern States Power Company— inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, the consequences of any accident previously Northern States Power Company— evaluated are not significantly increased. Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Therefore, the proposed change does not Wright County, Minnesota involve a significant increase in the 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Date of amendment request: July 15, probability or consequences of an accident Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 2015. A publicly-available version is in previously evaluated. Minnesota ADAMS under Accession No. 2. Does the proposed change create the Date of amendment request: June 29, possibility of a new or different kind of ML15196A576. accident from any accident previously 2015. A publicly-available version is in Description of amendment request: evaluated? ADAMS under Accession No. The proposed amendment would revise Response: No. ML15187A259. or add technical specification (TS) The proposed change revises or adds SRs Description of amendment request: surveillance requirements (SRs) that that require verification that the ECCS, the The proposed amendment would revise require verification that the Emergency RHR/SDC System, the CS System, and the or add technical specification (TS) Core Cooling System (ECCS), the RCIC System are not rendered inoperable due surveillance requirements (SRs) that Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System/ to accumulated gas and to provide require verification that the Emergency allowances which permit performance of the Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, the revised verification. The proposed change Core Cooling System (ECCS), the Containment Spray (CS) System, and does not involve a physical alteration of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling plant (i.e., no new or different type of and the Containment Spray (CS) System (RCIC) System are not rendered equipment will be installed) or a change in are not rendered inoperable due to gas inoperable due to gas accumulation and the methods governing normal plant accumulation and to provide allowances to provide allowances which permit operation. In addition, the proposed change which permit performance of the performance of the revised verification. does not impose any new or different revised verification. The changes are The changes are being made to address requirements that could initiate an accident. being made to address the concerns The proposed change does not alter the concerns discussed in NRC Generic assumptions made in the safety analysis and discussed in NRC Generic Letter 2008– Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas is consistent with the safety analysis 01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in Accumulation in Emergency Core assumptions. Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Therefore, the proposed change does not Removal, and Containment Spray Containment Spray Systems.’’ The create the possibility of a new or different Systems.’’ The proposed changes are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61485

based on Revision 2 of NRC-approved 3. Does the proposed amendment involve (SFPSAFS)’’; and 10c.3.a, ‘‘Safety Technical Specification Task Force a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Injection Pump Room Air Filtration (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–523, ‘‘Generic Response: No. System (SIPRAFS),’’ and TS 3.6(3)c, Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas The proposed change [revises or] adds SRs ‘‘Containment Recirculating Air Cooling that require verification that the ECCS, the Accumulation,’’ dated February 21, RHR System, and the CS System are not and Filtering System,’’ also known as 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas the Containment Air Cooling and ML13053A075). The NRC staff issued a and to provide allowances which permit Filtering System (CACFS). Notice of Availability for TSTF–523, performance of the revised verification. The Basis for proposed no significant Revision 2, for plant-specific adoption proposed change adds new requirements to hazards consideration determination: using the consolidated line item manage gas accumulation in order to ensure As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the improvement process, in the Federal the subject systems are capable of performing licensee has provided its analysis of the Register on January 15, 2014 (79 FR their assumed safety functions. The proposed issue of no significant hazards SRs will ensure that the assumptions of the consideration, which is presented 2700). safety analysis are protected. The proposed Basis for proposed no significant change does not adversely affect any current below: hazards consideration determination: plant safety margins or the reliability of the 1. Does the proposed change involve a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. significant increase in the probability or licensee has provided its analysis of the Therefore, there are no changes being made consequences of an accident previously issue of no significant hazards to any safety analysis assumptions, safety evaluated? Response: No. consideration, which is provided below: limits[,] or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result The proposed change replaces an existing 1. Does the proposed amendment involve of the proposed change. SR to operate the CRAFS for ten (10) a significant increase in the probability or Therefore, the proposed licensing basis continuous hours every month with heaters consequences of an accident previously change does not involve a significant operating with a requirement to operate the evaluated? reduction in a margin of safety. system for 15 continuous minutes every Response: No. month with heaters operating. The proposed The proposed change revises or adds The NRC staff has reviewed the change also replaces existing SRs to operate Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that require licensee’s analysis and, based on this the SFPSAFS, the SIPRAFS, and the CACFS verification that the Emergency Core Cooling review, it appears that the three for ten (10) hours every month with a System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are requirement to operate these systems for 15 (RHR) System, and the Containment Spray satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff continuous minutes every month. (CS) System are not rendered inoperable due proposes to determine that the These systems are not accident initiators to accumulated gas and to provide and therefore, these changes do not involve amendment request involves no a significant increase in the probability of an allowances which permit performance of the significant hazards consideration. revised verification. Gas accumulation in the accident. The proposed system and filter Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, testing changes are consistent with current subject systems is not an initiator of any Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy accident previously evaluated. As a result, regulatory guidance for these systems. The the probability of any accident previously Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, proposed changes continue to ensure that evaluated is not significantly increased. The Minneapolis, MN 55401. these systems perform their design function, proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. which may include mitigating accidents. continue to be capable to perform their Thus, the change does not involve a Omaha Public Power District, Docket significant increase in the consequences of an assumed safety function and are not rendered No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit accident. inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, Therefore, it is concluded that this change the consequences of any accident previously No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska does not involve a significant increase in the evaluated are not significantly increased. Date of amendment request: July 24, probability or consequences of an accident Therefore, the proposed licensing basis 2015. A publicly-available version is in previously evaluated. change does not involve a significant ADAMS under Accession No. 2. Does the proposed change create the increase in the probability or consequences ML15205A276. possibility of a new or different kind of of an accident previously evaluated. Description of amendment request: accident from any accident previously 2. Does the proposed amendment create The amendment would revise the evaluated? the possibility of a new or different kind of Response: No. accident from any accident previously Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs), which The proposed change replaces an existing evaluated? SR to operate the CRAFS for ten (10) Response: No. currently require operating ventilation continuous hours every month with heaters The proposed change [revises or] adds SRs systems with charcoal filters for a 10- operating with a requirement to operate the that require verification that the ECCS, the hour period at a monthly frequency. The system for 15 continuous minutes every RHR System, and the CS System are not SRs would be revised to require month with heaters operating. The proposed rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas operation of the systems for 15 change also replaces existing SRs to operate and to provide allowances which permit continuous minutes at a monthly the SFPSAFS, the SIPRAFS, and the CACFS performance of the revised verification. The for ten (10) hours every month with a proposed change does not involve a physical frequency. The proposed amendment is consistent with NRC-approved requirement to operate these systems for 15 alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or continuous minutes every month. different type of equipment will be installed) Technical Specifications Task Force The change proposed for these ventilation or a change in the methods governing normal (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, systems does not change any system plant operation. In addition, the proposed ‘‘Revise Ventilation System Surveillance operations or maintenance activities. Testing change does not impose any new or different Requirements to Operate for 10 hours requirements will be revised and will requirements that could initiate an accident. per Month,’’ as published in the Federal continue to demonstrate that the Limiting The proposed change does not alter Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR Conditions for Operation are met and/or the assumptions made in the safety analysis and 58428), with variations due to plant- system components are capable of is consistent with the safety analysis specific nomenclature. The changes performing their intended safety functions. assumptions. The change does not create new failure Therefore, the proposed licensing basis would revise TS 3.2, Table 3-5; SR Items modes or mechanisms and no new accident change does not create the possibility of a 10a.3.a, ‘‘Control Room Air Filtration precursors are generated. new or different kind of accident from any System (CRAFS)’’; 10b.3.a, ‘‘Spent Fuel Therefore, it is concluded that this change accident previously evaluated. Pool Storage Area Filtration System does not create the possibility of a new or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

different kind of accident from any accident Basis for proposed no significant satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff previously evaluated. hazards consideration determination: proposes to determine that the 3. Does the proposed change involve a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the amendment request involves no significant reduction in a margin of safety? licensee has provided its analysis of the significant hazards consideration. Response: No. The proposed change replaces an existing issue of no significant hazards Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, SR to operate the CRAFS for ten (10) consideration, which is presented Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street continuous hours every month with heaters below: NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. operating with a requirement to operate the 1. Does the proposed amendment involve NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. system for 15 continuous minutes every a significant increase in the probability or Markley. month with heaters operating. The proposed consequences of an accident previously change also replaces existing SRs to operate Pacific Gas and Electric Company evaluated? (PG&E), Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, the SFPSAFS, the SIPRAFS, and the CACFS Response: No. for ten (10) hours every month with a The proposed changes are administrative Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant requirement to operate these systems for 15 in nature, involving changes to personnel (DCPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis continuous minutes every month. and committee titles, deletion and or re- Obispo County, California The design basis for the CRAFS heaters is location of requirements redundant to to heat the incoming air, which reduces the Date of amendment request: June 17, regulations, and deletion of conditions 2015, as supplemented by letter dated relative humidity. The heater testing change controlling the first performance of testing proposed for the CRAFS will continue to that has since been completed. The proposed August 31, 2015. Publicly-available demonstrate that the heaters are capable of changes do not involve a significant increase versions are in ADAMS under heating the air and will perform their design in the probability or consequences of an Accession Nos. ML15176A539 and function. The SFPSAFS, and the SIPRAFS accident previously evaluated because: (1) ML15243A363, respectively. are tested for adsorption at a relative the proposed amendment does not represent Description of amendment request: humidity of [95 percent (%)] in accordance a change to the system design, (2) the The amendments would revise the with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.52, Revision 3, proposed amendment does not alter, degrade, licensing bases to adopt the alternative and do not require heaters for these systems or prevent action described or assumed in source term (AST) as allowed by 10 CFR to perform their specified safety function. any accident in the USAR from being 50.67, ‘‘Accident source term.’’ The AST The CACFS does not need to be tested performed, (3) the proposed amendment does similarly because the CACFS charcoal filters not alter any assumptions previously made in methodology, as established in NRC are not credited for the removal of evaluating radiological consequences, and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, radioiodines. The proposed change is [(4)] the proposed amendment does not affect ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source Terms consistent with regulatory guidance. the integrity of any fission product barrier. for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Therefore, it is concluded that this change No other safety related equipment is affected Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ July 2000 does not involve a significant reduction in a by the proposed change. (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792), margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do not is used to calculate the offsite and The NRC staff has reviewed the involve a significant increase in the control room radiological consequences licensee’s analysis and, based on this probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. of postulated accidents for DCPP, Unit review, it appears that the three 2. Does the proposed amendment create Nos. 1 and 2. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the possibility of a new or different kind of Basis for proposed no significant satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident from any accident previously hazards consideration determination: proposes to determine that the evaluated? As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the amendment request involves no Response: No. licensee has provided its analysis of the significant hazards consideration. The proposed changes do not alter the issue of no significant hazards Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, physical design, safety limits, or safety consideration, which is presented Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, analysis assumptions associated with the below: operation of the plant. Hence, the proposed NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. 1. Does the proposed change involve a NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. changes do not introduce any new accident initiators, nor do these changes reduce or significant increase in the probability or Markley. adversely affect the capabilities of any plant consequences of an accident previously Omaha Public Power District, Docket structure or system in the performance of evaluated? No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit their safety function. Response: No. This license amendment does not No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different physically impact any system, structure, or Date of amendment request: August kind of accident from any previously component (SSC) that is a potential initiator 20, 2015. A publicly-available version is evaluated. of an accident. Therefore, implementation of in ADAMS under Accession No. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve AST, the AST assumptions and inputs, the ML15233A494. a significant reduction in a margin of safety? proposed [Technical Specification (TS)] Description of amendment request: Response: No. changes, and new c/Q values have no impact The proposed changes do not alter the on the probability for initiation of any design The amendment would make basis accident. Once the occurrence of an administrative changes to update manner in which safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. The accident has been postulated, the new personnel and committee titles in the safety analysis acceptance criteria are not accident source term and [atmospheric Technical Specifications (TSs), delete affected by these proposed changes. Further, dispersion factors (c/Q)] values are inputs to outdated or completed additional the proposed changes do not change the analyses that evaluate the radiological actions contained in Appendix B of the design function of any equipment assumed to consequences of the postulated events. license, and relocate the definition of operate in the event of an accident. Reactor coolant specific activity, testing Process Control Program from the TSs to Therefore, the proposed changes do not criteria of charcoal filters, and the accident the Updated Safety Analysis Report involve a significant reduction in a margin of induced primary-to-secondary system safety. leakage performance criterion are not (USAR). The changes are proposed by initiators for any accident previously the licensee to use consistent The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluated. The proposed change to require terminology with Exelon Generation licensee’s analysis and, based on this the 48-inch containment purge valves to be Company as part of their Operating review, it appears that the three sealed closed during operating MODES 1, 2, Services Agreement. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 3, and 4 is not an accident initiator for any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61487

accident previously evaluated. The change in Procedures. Usage of recirculation spray modes, alter the nature of events postulated the classifications of a portion of the 40-inch reduces the consequence of the postulated in the UFSAR, nor introduce any unique Containment Penetration Area Ventilation event. Likewise, the additional shielding to precursor mechanism. line and a portion of the 2-inch gaseous the Control Room and the addition of a [high- Requiring the 48-inch containment purge radwaste system line is also not an accident efficiency particulate air (HEPA)] filter to the valves to be sealed closed during operating initiator for any accident previously [Technical Support Center (TSC)] ventilation MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4 does not introduce any evaluated. Thus, the proposed TS changes system reduces the consequences of the new accident precursor. This change only and AST implementation will not increase postulated event to the Control Room and eliminates a potential release path for the probability of an accident. TSC personnel. Lowering the limit for [Dose radionuclides following a LOCA. The change to the decay time prior to fuel Equivalent XE-133 (DEX)] lowers potential The proposed TS testing criteria for the movement is not an accident initiator. Decay releases. By reclassifying a portion of the 40- auxiliary building ventilation system time is used to determine the source term for inch Containment Penetration Area charcoal filters and the proposed the dose consequence calculation following a Ventilation line and a portion of the 2-inch performance criteria for steam generator tube potential [fuel handling accident (FHA)] and gaseous radwaste system line to PG&E Design integrity also cannot create an accident, but has no effect on the probability of the Class I, these lines will be seismically results in requiring more efficient filtration of accident. Likewise, the change to the Control qualified, thus assuring that post-LOCA potentially released iodine and less allowable Room radiation monitors setpoint cannot release points are the same as those used for primary-to-secondary leakage. The proposed cause an accident and the operation of determining c/Q values. changes to the DEX activity limit, the TS containment spray during the recirculation The change to the decay time from 100 terminology, and the decay time of the fuel phase is used for mitigation of a [loss-of- hours to 72 hours prior to fuel movement is before movement are also unrelated to coolant accident (LOCA)], and thus not an an input to the FHA. Although less decay accident initiators. accident initiator. will result in higher released activity, the The only physical changes to the plant As a result, there are no proposed changes results of the FHA dose consequence analysis being made in support of AST is the addition to the parameters or conditions that could remain within the dose acceptance criteria of of Control Room shielding in an area contribute to the initiation of an accident the event. Also, the radiation levels to an previously modified, the addition of a HEPA previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the operator from a raised fuel assembly may filter at the intake of the TSC normal Updated Final Safety Analysis Report increase due to a lower decay time, however, ventilation system, and the upgrade to the (UFSAR). As such, the AST cannot affect the any exposure will continue to be maintained damper actuators, pressure switches, and probability of an accident previously under 10 CFR 20 limits by the plant damper solenoid valves to support evaluated. Radiation Protection Program. reclassifying a portion of the Containment Regarding accident consequences, Plant-specific radiological analyses have Penetration Area Ventilation line to PG&E equipment and components affected by the been performed using the AST methodology, Design Class I. Both Control Room shielding proposed changes are mitigative in nature assumption and inputs, as well as new c/Q and HEPA filtration are mitigative in nature and relied upon once the accident has been values. The results of the dose consequences and do not have any impact on plant postulated. The license amendment analyses demonstrate that the regulatory operation or system response following an implements a new calculation methodology acceptance criteria are met for each analyzed accident. The Control Room modification for for determining accident consequences and event. Implementing the AST involves no adding the shielding will meet applicable does not adversely affect any plant facility equipment, procedure, or process loading limits, so the addition of the component or system that is credited to changes that could significantly affect the shielding cannot initiate a failure. Upgrading mitigate fuel damage. Subsequently, no radioactive material actually released during damper actuators, pressure switches, and conditions have been created that could an event. Subsequently, no conditions have damper solenoid valves involve replacing significantly increase the consequences of been created that could significantly increase existing components with components that any accidents previously evaluated. the consequences of any of the events being are PG&E Design Class I. Therefore, the Requiring that the 48-inch containment evaluated. addition of shielding, a HEPA filter, and purge supply and exhaust valves be sealed Based on the above discussion, the upgrading components cannot create a new closed during operating MODES 1, 2, 3, and proposed changes do not involve a or different kind of accident. 4 eliminates a potential path for radiological significant increase in the probability or Since the function of the SSCs has not release following events that result in consequences of an accident previously changed for AST implementation, no new radioactive material releases to the evaluated. failure modes are created by this proposed containment, thus reducing potential 2. Does the proposed change create the change. The AST change itself does not have consequences of the event. The steam possibility of a new or different accident the capability to initiate accidents. generator tube inspection testing criterion for from any accident previously evaluated? Therefore, the proposed change does not accident induced leakage is being changed, Response: No. create the possibility of a new or different resulting in lower leakage rates, and thus less This license amendment does not alter or type of accident from any accident potential releases due to primary-to- place any SSC in a configuration outside its previously evaluated. secondary leakage. The auxiliary building design or analysis limits and does not create 3. Does the proposed change involve a ventilation system allowable methyl iodide any new accident scenarios. significant reduction in a margin of safety? penetration limit is being changed, which The AST methodology is not an accident Response: No. results in more stringent testing initiator, as it is a method used to estimate Implementing the AST is relevant only to requirements, and thus higher filter resulting postulated design basis accident calculated dose consequences of potential efficiencies for reducing potential releases. doses. The proposed TS changes reflect the design basis accidents evaluated in Chapter Changes to the operation of the plant configuration that supports 15 of the UFSAR. The changes proposed in containment spray system to require implementation of the new methodology and this license amendment involve the use of a operation during the recirculation mode are supports reduction in dose consequences. new analysis methodology and related also mitigative in nature. While the plant DCPP is designed and licensed to operate regulatory acceptance criteria. New design basis has always included the ability using containment spray in the recirculation atmospheric dispersion factors, which are to implement containment spray during mode. This change will not affect any based on site specific meteorological data, recirculation, this license amendment now operational aspect of the system or any other were calculated in accordance with requires operation of containment spray in system, thus no new modes of operation are regulatory guidelines. The proposed TS, TS the recirculation mode for dose mitigation. introduced by the proposed change. Bases, and UFSAR changes reflect the plant DCPP is designed and licensed to operate The function of the radiation monitors has configuration that will support using containment spray in the recirculation not changed; only the setpoint has changed implementation of the new methodology and mode. As such, operation of containment as a result of an assessment of all potential result in operation in accordance with spray in the recirculation mode has already release pathways. The continued operation of regulatory guidelines that support the been analyzed, evaluated, and is currently containment spray and the radiation monitor revisions to the radiological analyses of the controlled by Emergency Operating setpoint change do not create any new failure limiting design basis accidents. Conservative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

methodologies, per the guidance of RG 1.183, 1. Does the proposed amendment involve Therefore, the proposed changes do not have been used in performing the accident a significant increase in the probability or involve a significant reduction in a margin of analyses. The radiological consequences of consequences of an accident previously safety. these accidents are all within the regulatory evaluated? The NRC staff has reviewed the acceptance criteria associated with the use of Response: No. AST methodology. The design functions of the VES for the licensee’s analysis and, based on this The change to the minimum decay time main control room (MCR) are to provide review, it appears that the three prior to fuel movement results in higher breathable air, maintain positive standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are fission product releases after a FHA. pressurization relative to the outside, provide satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff However, the results of the FHA dose cooling of MCR equipment and facilities, and proposes to determine that the consequence analysis remain within the dose provide passive air filtration within the MCR amendment request involves no acceptance criteria of the event. boundary. The VES is designed to satisfy significant hazards consideration. The proposed changes continue to ensure these functions for up to 72 hours following Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. that the dose consequences of design basis a design basis accident. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, The proposed changes to the ASME accidents at the exclusion area, low 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., population zone boundaries, in the TSC, and [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] in the Control Room are within the safety classification of components, Washington, DC 20004–2514. corresponding acceptance criteria presented equipment orientation and configuration, NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67. The margin addition and deletion of components, and Burkhart. of safety for the radiological consequences of correction to the number of emergency air storage tanks would not adversely affect any III. Previously Published Notices of these accidents is provided by meeting the Consideration of Issuance of applicable regulatory limits, which are set at design function. The proposed changes or below the 10 CFR 50.67 limits. An maintain the design function of the VES with Amendments to Facility Operating acceptable margin of safety is inherent in safety-related equipment and system Licenses and Combined Licenses, these limits. configuration consistent with the Proposed No Significant Hazards Therefore, the proposed change does not descriptions in UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Consideration Determination, and involve a significant reduction in a margin of Analysis Report] Subsection 6.4.2. The Opportunity for a Hearing safety. proposed changes do not affect the support or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The following notices were previously The NRC staff has reviewed the There is no change to the response of systems published as separate individual licensee’s analysis and, based on this to postulated accident conditions. There is notices. The notice content was the review, it appears that the three no change to the predicted radioactive same as above. They were published as standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are releases due to postulated accident individual notices either because time satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff conditions. The plant response to previously did not allow the Commission to wait proposes to determine that the evaluated accidents or external events is not for this biweekly notice or because the amendment requests involve no adversely affected, nor do the proposed action involved exigent circumstances. significant hazards consideration. changes described create any new accident precursors. They are repeated here because the Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Therefore, the proposed amendment does biweekly notice lists all amendments Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, not involve a significant increase in the issued or proposed to be issued P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California probability or consequences of an accident involving no significant hazards 94120. previously evaluated. consideration. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 2. Does the proposed amendment create For details, see the individual notice Markley. the possibility of a new or different kind of in the Federal Register on the day and accident from any accident previously South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, page cited. This notice does not extend evaluated? the notice period of the original notice. Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52–028, Virgil Response: No. C. Summer Units 2 and 3, Fairfield The proposed changes to revise the VES Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. County, South Carolina design related to the ASME safety 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, classification, equipment orientation and Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: June 30, configuration, addition and deletion of 2015. A publicly-available version is in components, and correction to the number of Date of amendment request: June 17, ADAMS under Accession No. emergency air storage tanks maintains 2015, as supplemented by letters dated ML15181A470. consistency with the design function July 14, August 28, and September 3, Description of amendment request: information in the USFAR. The proposed 2015. Publicly-available versions are in The amendment request proposes changes do not create a new fault or sequence ADAMS under Accession Nos. changes to the Main Control Room of events that could result in a radioactive ML15170A474, ML15197A357, Emergency Habitability System (VES) release. The proposed changes would not ML15243A044, and ML15246A638, configuration and equipment safety affect any safety-related accident mitigating respectively. designation. Because, this proposed function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not Brief description of amendment change requires a departure from Tier 1 create the possibility of a new or different request: The amendment would modify information in the Westinghouse kind of accident from any previously the technical specifications to define Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control evaluated. support systems needed in the first 48 Document (DCD), the licensee also 3. Does the proposed amendment involve hours after a unit shutdown when steam requested an exemption from the a significant reduction in a margin of safety? generators are not available for heat requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 Response: No. removal. The amendment would also in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). The proposed changes do not affect the make changes consistent with Technical Basis for proposed no significant ability of the VES to maintain the safety- Specification Task Force Traveler-273- hazards consideration determination: related functions to the MCR. The VES continues to meet the requirements for which A, Revision 2, to provide clarifications As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the it was designed and continues to meet the related to the requirements of the Safety licensee has provided its analysis of the regulations. No safety analysis or design basis Function Determination Program. issue of no significant hazards acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or Date of publication of individual consideration, which is presented exceeded by the proposed changes, and no notice in Federal Register: September below: margin of safety is reduced. 15, 2015 (80 FR 55383).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61489

Expiration date of individual notice: Evaluation and/or Environmental function on Low Electro-Hydraulic (EH) October 15, 2015 (public comments); Assessment as indicated. All of these Fluid Oil Pressure. The amendment November 16, 2015 (hearing requests). items can be accessed as described in revised the Allowable Value and the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Nominal Trip Setpoint and revised the Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. Submitting Comments’’ section of this TS by applying additional testing 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, document. requirements listed in Technical Rhea County, Tennessee Specification Task Force (TSTF) Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Date of amendment request: August Traveler TSTF–493–A, Revision 4, Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is ‘‘Clarify Application of Setpoint Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and in ADAMS under Accession No. Methodologies for Limiting Safety 3, Oconee County, South Carolina ML15225A344. System Setting Functions,’’ for Low EH Brief description of amendment Date of application of amendments: Fluid Oil Pressure trip. request: To revise a current License June 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter Date of issuance: September 22, 2015. Condition (Section 2.F) regarding the dated June 8, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of Fire Protection Program and propose a Brief description of amendments: The issuance and shall be implemented new License Condition regarding a fire amendments revised the Technical within 120 days of completion of the protection requirement. Specifications related to Technical modification during Refueling Outage Date of publication of individual Specification 3.5.2 by reducing the 31 in fall of 2018. notice in Federal Register: September allowed maximum Rated Thermal Amendment No.: 243. A publicly- 4, 2015 (80 FR 53581). Power at which each unit can operate available version is in ADAMS under Expiration date of individual notice: when select High Pressure Injection Accession No. ML15040A073; October 5, 2015 (public comments); system equipment is inoperable. documents related to this amendment November 3, 2015 (hearing requests). Date of Issuance: September 24, 2015. are listed in the Safety Evaluation IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments Effective date: As of the date of enclosed with the amendment. to Facility Operating Licenses and issuance and shall be implemented Renewed Facility Operating License Combined Licenses within 120 days from the date of No. DPR–23: Amendment revised the issuance. Facility Operating License and During the period since publication of Amendment Nos.: 395, 397 and 396. Technical Specifications. the last biweekly notice, the A publicly-available version is in Date of initial notice in Federal Commission has issued the following ADAMS under Accession No. Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42542). amendments. The Commission has ML15166A387; documents related to The supplemental letters dated August determined for each of these these amendments are listed in the 28, 2014, and September 4, 2015, amendments that the application Safety Evaluation enclosure with the provided additional information that complies with the standards and amendments. clarified the application, did not expand requirements of the Atomic Energy Act Renewed Facility Operating License the scope of the application as originally of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: noticed, and did not change the staff’s Commission’s rules and regulations. Amendments revised the licenses and original proposed no significant hazards The Commission has made appropriate the technical specifications. consideration determination as findings as required by the Act and the Date of initial notice in Federal published in the Federal Register. Commission’s rules and regulations in Register: September 16, 2014 (79 FR The Commission’s related evaluation 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 55510). The supplement dated June 8, of the amendment is contained in a the license amendment. 2015, provided additional information Safety Evaluation dated September 22, A notice of consideration of issuance that clarified the application, did not 2015. of amendment to facility operating expand the scope of the application as No significant hazards consideration license or combined license, as originally noticed, and did not change comments received: No. applicable, proposed no significant the staff’s original proposed no Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and hazards consideration determination, significant hazards consideration and opportunity for a hearing in Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– determination. 458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West connection with these actions, was The Commission’s related evaluation Feliciana Parish, Louisiana published in the Federal Register as of the amendments is contained in a indicated. Safety Evaluation dated September 24, Date of amendment request: Unless otherwise indicated, the 2015. September 2, 2014, as supplemented by Commission has determined that these No significant hazards consideration letters dated April 23 and August 20, amendments satisfy the criteria for comments received: No. 2015. categorical exclusion in accordance Brief description of amendment: The with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Duke Energy Progress, Docket No. 50– amendment revised the Surveillance to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Requirements (SRs) related to gas impact statement or environmental Plant, Unit No. 2, Hartsville, South accumulation for the emergency core assessment need be prepared for these Carolina cooling system and reactor core amendments. If the Commission has Date of amendment request: February isolation cooling system. The prepared an environmental assessment 10, 2014, as supplemented by letters amendment also adds new SRs related under the special circumstances dated April 4, 2014, August 28, 2014, to gas accumulation for the residual heat provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has and September 4, 2015. removal and shutdown cooling systems. made a determination based on that Brief description of amendment: The The NRC staff has concluded that the assessment, it is so indicated. amendment revised Technical Technical Specification (TS) changes For further details with respect to the Specification (TS) 3.3.1 for the Reactor are consistent with NRC-approved action see (1) the applications for Protection System Instrumentation Technical Specification Task Force amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) Turbine Trip function on Low Auto (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–523, Revision 2, the Commission’s related letter, Safety Stop Oil Pressure to a Turbine Trip ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

Accumulation,’’ dated February 21, Date of issuance: September 15, 2015. additional information that clarified the 2013, as part of the consolidated line Effective date: As of the date of application, did not expand the scope of item improvement process. The TS issuance and shall be implemented the application as originally noticed, Bases associated with these SRs were within 120 days of issuance. and did not change the staff’s original also changed. Amendment Nos.: 219 (Unit 1) and proposed no significant hazards Date of issuance: September 21, 2015. 181 (Unit 2). A publicly-available consideration determination as Effective date: As of the date of version is in ADAMS under Accession published in the Federal Register. issuance and shall be implemented No. ML15218A501; documents related The Commission’s related evaluation within 60 days from the date of to these amendments are listed in the of the amendment is contained in a issuance. Safety Evaluation enclosed with the Safety Evaluation dated September 10, Amendment No.: 188. A publicly- amendments. 2015. available version is in ADAMS under Renewed Facility Operating License No significant hazards consideration Accession No. ML15195A061; Nos. NPF–39 and NPF–85: Amendments comments received: No. documents related to this amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating are listed in the Safety Evaluation Licenses and TSs. STP Nuclear Operating Company, enclosed with the amendment. Date of initial notice in Federal Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South Facility Operating License No. NPF– Register: December 23, 2014 (79 FR Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 47: The amendment revised the Facility 77046). The supplemental letter dated County, Texas Operating License and Technical April 14, 2015, provided additional Date of amendment request: April 29, Specifications. information that clarified the 2015. Date of initial notice in Federal application, did not expand the scope of Brief description of amendment: The Register: January 6, 2015 (80 FR 522). the application as originally noticed, amendments revised the Updated Final The supplements dated April 23 and and did not change the staff’s original Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table August 20, 2015, provided additional proposed no significant hazards 15.6–17 to correct errors introduced in information that clarified the consideration determination as UFSAR Revisions 16 and 17. application, did not expand the scope of published in the Federal Register. Date of issuance: September 22, 2015. the application as originally noticed, The Commission’s related evaluation Effective date: As of the date of and did not change the staff’s original of the amendments is contained in a issuance and shall be implemented proposed no significant hazards Safety Evaluation dated September 15, within 90 days of issuance. consideration determination as 2015. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–207; Unit published in the Federal Register on No significant hazards consideration 2–195. A publicly-available version is in January 6, 2015 (80 FR 522). comments received: No. ADAMS under Accession No. The Commission’s related evaluation ML15209A641; documents related to National Institute of Standards and of the amendment is contained in a these amendments are listed in the Technology (NIST), Docket No. 50–184, Safety Evaluation dated September 21, Safety Evaluation enclosed with the Center for Neutron Research, National 2015. amendments. No significant hazards consideration Bureau of Standards Test Reactor Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– comments received: No. (NBSR), Montgomery County, Maryland 76 and NPF–80: The amendments Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Date of amendment request: June 23, revised the Facility Operating Licenses. Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 2014, as supplemented on August 20, Date of initial notice in Federal Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 2014, February 26, 2015, and June 12, Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43130). and 2, Montgomery County, 2015. The Commission’s related evaluation Brief description of amendment: The Pennsylvania of the amendments is contained in a amendment revised the NIST NBSR’s Safety Evaluation dated September 22, Date of amendment request: Technical Specifications Section 3.6 2015. November 3, 2014, as supplemented by and Surveillance Requirement 4.6, No significant hazards consideration letter dated April 14, 2015. pertaining to the NIST reactor comments received: No. Brief description of amendments: The emergency power system, which adds Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. amendments added new Limiting specifications and testing requirements 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Conditions for Operation (LCOs) 3.0.5 for the new valve-regulated lead acid Rhea County, Tennessee and 3.0.6 to the Applicability section of batteries of the new uninterruptable the Technical Specifications (TSs). LCO power supplies. Date of amendment request: April 6, 3.0.5 establishes an allowance for Date of issuance: September 10, 2015. 2015, as supplemented by letter dated restoring equipment to service under Effective date: As of the date of July 15, 2015. administrative controls when the issuance. Brief description of amendment: The equipment has been removed from Amendment No.: 10. A publicly- amendment revised the Technical service or declared inoperable to available version is in ADAMS under Specifications by modifying the comply with TS Action requirements. Accession No. ML15237A146; acceptance criteria for the emergency LCO 3.0.6 provides actions to be taken documents related to this amendment diesel generator steady-state frequency when the inoperability of a support are listed in the Safety Evaluation range in associated surveillance system results in the inoperability of the enclosed with the amendment. requirements. related supported systems. In addition, Facility Operating License No. TR–5: Date of issuance: September 17, 2015. the amendments added the Safety Amendment revised the Facility Effective date: As of the date of Function Determination Program to the Operating License and Technical issuance and shall be implemented after Administrative Controls section of the Specifications. the issuance of the Facility Operating TSs. This program is intended to ensure Date of initial notice in Federal License for Unit 2. that a loss of safety function is detected Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38760). Amendment No.: 102. A publicly- and appropriate actions are taken when The supplemental letters dated February available version is in ADAMS under LCO 3.0.6 is entered. 26, 2015, and June 12, 2015, provided Accession No. ML15230A155;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61491

documents related to this amendment reasonable opportunity for the public to Evaluation and/or Environmental are listed in the Safety Evaluation comment, using its best efforts to make Assessment, as indicated. All of these enclosed with the amendment. available to the public means of items can be accessed as described in Facility Operating License No. NFP– communication for the public to the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 90: Amendment revised the Facility respond quickly, and in the case of Submitting Comments’’ section of this Operating License and Technical telephone comments, the comments document. Specifications. have been recorded or transcribed as A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing Date of initial notice in Federal appropriate and the licensee has been and Petition for Leave To Intervene Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30103). informed of the public comments. The supplemental letter dated July 15, In circumstances where failure to act The Commission is also offering an 2015, provided additional information in a timely way would have resulted, for opportunity for a hearing with respect to that clarified the application, did not example, in derating or shutdown of a the issuance of the amendment. Within expand the scope of the application as nuclear power plant or in prevention of 60 days after the date of publication of originally noticed, and did not change either resumption of operation or of this notice, any person(s) whose interest the staff’s original proposed no increase in power output up to the may be affected by this action may file significant hazards consideration plant’s licensed power level, the a request for a hearing and a petition to determination as published in the Commission may not have had an intervene with respect to issuance of the Federal Register. opportunity to provide for public amendment to the subject facility The Commission’s related evaluation comment on its no significant hazards operating license or combined license. of the amendments is contained in a consideration determination. In such Requests for a hearing and a petition for Safety Evaluation dated September 17, case, the license amendment has been leave to intervene shall be filed in 2015. issued without opportunity for accordance with the Commission’s No significant hazards consideration comment. If there has been some time ‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and determination comments received: No. for public comment but less than 30 Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to days, the Commission may provide an of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at Facility Operating Licenses and opportunity for public comment. If the NRC’s PDR, located at One White Combined Licenses and Final comments have been requested, it is so Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Determination of No Significant stated. In either event, the State has Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Hazards Consideration and been consulted by telephone whenever Maryland 20852, and electronically on Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent possible. Under its regulations, the Commission the Internet at the NRC’s Web site, Public Announcement or Emergency may issue and make an amendment http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- Circumstances) immediately effective, notwithstanding collections/cfr/. If there are problems in During the period since publication of the pendency before it of a request for accessing the document, contact the the last biweekly notice, the a hearing from any person, in advance PDR’s Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, Commission has issued the following of the holding and completion of any 301-415-4737, or by email to amendments. The Commission has required hearing, where it has [email protected]. If a request for a determined for each of these determined that no significant hazards hearing or petition for leave to intervene amendments that the application for the consideration is involved. is filed by the above date, the amendment complies with the The Commission has applied the Commission or a presiding officer standards and requirements of the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made designated by the Commission or by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended a final determination that the Chief Administrative Judge of the (the Act), and the Commission’s rules amendment involves no significant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and regulations. The Commission has hazards consideration. The basis for this Panel, will rule on the request and/or made appropriate findings as required determination is contained in the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief by the Act and the Commission’s rules documents related to this action. Administrative Judge of the Atomic and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, Accordingly, the amendments have Safety and Licensing Board will issue a which are set forth in the license been issued and made effective as notice of a hearing or an appropriate amendment. indicated. order. Because of exigent or emergency Unless otherwise indicated, the As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a circumstances associated with the date Commission has determined that these petition for leave to intervene shall set the amendment was needed, there was amendments satisfy the criteria for forth with particularity the interest of not time for the Commission to publish, categorical exclusion in accordance the petitioner in the proceeding, and for public comment before issuance, its with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant how that interest may be affected by the usual notice of consideration of to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental results of the proceeding. The petition issuance of amendment, proposed no impact statement or environmental should specifically explain the reasons significant hazards consideration assessment need be prepared for these why intervention should be permitted determination, and opportunity for a amendments. If the Commission has with particular reference to the hearing. prepared an environmental assessment following general requirements: (1) The For exigent circumstances, the under the special circumstances name, address, and telephone number of Commission has either issued a Federal provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has the requestor or petitioner; (2) the Register notice providing opportunity made a determination based on that nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s for public comment or has used local assessment, it is so indicated. right under the Act to be made a party media to provide notice to the public in For further details with respect to the to the proceeding; (3) the nature and the area surrounding a licensee’s facility action see (1) the application for extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s of the licensee’s application and of the amendment, (2) the amendment to property, financial, or other interest in Commission’s proposed determination Facility Operating License or Combined the proceeding; and (4) the possible of no significant hazards consideration. License, as applicable, and (3) the effect of any decision or order which The Commission has provided a Commission’s related letter, Safety may be entered in the proceeding on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The Effective date: This license ACTION: Notice of hearing. petition must also identify the specific amendment is effective as of the date of contentions which the requestor/ issuance and shall be implemented SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory petitioner seeks to have litigated at the prior to the SR 3.1.5.3 performance due Commission (NRC or the Commission) proceeding. date for CEA 88 in Unit 2, Cycle 19. will convene an evidentiary session to Each contention must consist of a Amendment No.: 196. A publicly- receive testimony and exhibits in the specific statement of the issue of law or available version is in ADAMS under uncontested portion of this proceeding fact to be raised or controverted. In Accession No. ML15266A005; regarding the application of Nuclear addition, the requestor/petitioner shall documents related to this amendment Innovation North America LLC (NINA) provide a brief explanation of the bases are listed in the Safety Evaluation for combined licenses (COLs) to for the contention and a concise enclosed with the amendment. construct and operate two additional statement of the alleged facts or expert Renewed Facility Operating License units (Units 3 and 4) at the South Texas opinion which support the contention No. NPF-51: Amendment revised the Project (STP) Electric Generating Station and on which the petitioner intends to Operating License and Technical site in Matagorda County near Bay City, rely in proving the contention at the Specifications. Texas. This mandatory hearing will hearing. The petitioner must also Public comments requested as to concern safety and environmental provide references to those specific proposed no significant hazards matters relating to the requested COLs. consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public sources and documents of which the DATES: The hearing will be held on petitioner is aware and on which the notice of the proposed amendment was November 19, 2015, beginning at 8:30 petitioner intends to rely to establish published in the Arizona Republic, a.m. Eastern Time. For the schedule for those facts or expert opinion. The located in Phoenix, Arizona, from submitting pre-filed documents and petition must include sufficient September 21 through September 22, deadlines affecting Interested information to show that a genuine 2015. The notice provided an Government Participants, see Section VI opportunity to submit comments on the dispute exists with the applicant on a of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION material issue of law or fact. Commission’s proposed NSHC section of this document. Contentions shall be limited to matters determination. No comments were within the scope of the amendment received. The supplemental letter dated ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket IDs under consideration. The contention September 15, 2015, provided 52–012 and 52–013 when contacting the must be one which, if proven, would additional information that clarified the NRC about the availability of entitle the petitioner to relief. A application, did not expand the scope of information regarding this document. requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy the application as originally noticed, You may obtain publicly-available these requirements with respect to at and did not change the staff’s original information related to this document least one contention will not be proposed NSHC determination as using any of the following methods: • permitted to participate as a party. published in the Arizona Republic. NRC’s Electronic Hearing Docket: Those permitted to intervene become The Commission’s related evaluation You may obtain publicly available parties to the proceeding, subject to any of the amendment, finding of exigent documents related to this hearing online limitations in the order granting leave to circumstances, state consultation, and at http://www.nrc.gov/abaout-nrc/ intervene, and have the opportunity to final NSHC determination are contained regulatory/adjudicatory.html. participate fully in the conduct of the in a Safety Evaluation dated September • NRC’s Agencywide Documents hearing. Since the Commission has 25, 2015. Access and Management System made a final determination that the Attorney for licensee: William A. (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly amendment involves no significant Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K available documents online in the hazards consideration, if a hearing is Street NW., Washington, DC 20006– ADAMS Public Documents collection at requested, it will not stay the 3817. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ effectiveness of the amendment. Any NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. adams.html. To begin the search, select hearing held would take place while the Markley. ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then amendment is in effect. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS of October 2015. Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, Arizona Public Service Company, please contact the NRC’s Public Docket No. 50–529, Palo Verde Nuclear For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Document Room (PDR) reference staff at Generating Station, Unit 2, Maricopa 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by County, Arizona Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor email to [email protected]. The Date of amendment request: Regulation. ADAMS accession number for each September 4, 2015, as supplemented by [FR Doc. 2015–25860 Filed 10–9–15; 8:45 am] document referenced (if it is available in letter dated September 15, 2015. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P ADAMS) is provided the first time that Description of amendment request: a document is referenced. The amendment added a Note to • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and Technical Specification Surveillance NUCLEAR REGULATORY purchase copies of public documents at Requirement (SR) 3.1.5.3, Control COMMISSION the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One Element Assembly (CEA) freedom of White Flint North, 11555 Rockville [Docket Nos. 52–012 and 52–013; NRC– movement surveillance, such that Unit Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 2, CEA 88 may be excluded from the 2008–0091] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: remaining quarterly performance of the In the Matter of Nuclear Innovation Glenn Ellmers, Office of the Secretary, SR in Unit 2, Cycle 19 due to a degraded North America LLC, Combined U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, upper gripper coil. The amendment Licenses for South Texas Project, Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone: allows the licensee to delay exercising Units 3 and 4; Notice of Hearing 301–415–0442; email: Glenn.Ellmers@ CEA 88 until after repairs can be made nrc.gov. during the upcoming fall 2015 outage. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Date of issuance: September 25, 2015. Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES