ML17199A117

2017/05/10 NRR E-mail Capture - NRC Notification of Intent to Issue License Amendment for Oconee Nuclear Station - Approval of One Time Change to Technical Specifications to Allow Time to Replace the Stator on Each Keowee Unit

ML17199A117
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	05/10/2017
From:	Koenick S S Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Jenkins S, Yeager M State of SC, Dept of Health & Environmental Control
References
Download: ML17199A117 (14)

Text

1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Koenick, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 5:25 PM To:jenkinse@dhec.sc.gov; 'yeagerma@dhec.sc.gov' Cc:Klett, Audrey

Subject:

NRC Notification of Intent to Issue Lice nse Amendment for Oconee Nuclear Station - Approval of one time change to technical specifications to allow time to replace the

stator on each Keowee unit Attachments:

2016-15659 BWN Oconee Stator.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:

FlaggedMay 10, 2017

Ms. Susan E. Jenkins Manager, Infectious and Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land & Waste Management

Division of Waste Management/IRWMS

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Mr. Mark A. Yeager Environmental Health Manager

Bureau of Land & Waste Management

Division of Waste Management/IRWMS

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Dear Susan and Mark,

The NRC is preparing to issue a license amendment for the Oconee Nuclear Station to revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for a one-time change to allow sufficient time to replace the stator on each Keowee Hydro Unit.

Here is the relevant information for the license amendment request:

Date of submittal: February 26, 2016 (NRC Agen cywide Documents Acce ss and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16064A020).

Federal Register Notice of Consideration: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43650).

[copy attached, specific BWN starts on page 43650

] Brief description of Amendment: The proposed changes would modify TS 3.8.1, "AC Sources - Operating," to allow sufficient time to replace the stator on each Keowee Hydro Unit (KHU).

Specifically, the current TS 3.8.1 RA C.2.2.5 maintenance provision requires the KHU and its required overhead emergency power path to be restored to operable status within 45 days of discovery of an initial inoperability when Condition C is entered due to an inoperable KHU if not used for that KHU in the previous 3 years. This 45-day time period is not sufficient to allow the KHU generator stator replacement work to be performed. Therefore, the licensee proposes to add a temporary Completion Time (CT) to RA C.2.2.5 that would allow 55 days to restore an inoperable KHU due to stator replacement. The temporary CT can be used 2once for each KHU. The proposed changes are similar to those previously reviewed and approved to support the KHU generator pole rewinds "License Amendment Request for Temporary Technical Specification Change to Add a Required Action Completion Time for One Keowee Hydro Unit Inoperable for Generator Field Pole Rewinds," dated February 27, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12181A312) and "Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3, Issuance of Amendments Temporary Technical Specification Change Request to Extend the Completion Time For An Inoperable Keowee Hydro Unit," dated January 8, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13357A674.

The licensee also proposes a change to TS 3.8.1 RA C.2.2.3 Note to allow use of the 60-hour dual KHU outage to disassemble and reassemble the KHU and return it to a functional condition.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or comments regarding this amendment.

On a separate note, Ms. Audrey Klett will become the NRC Project Manager for the Oconee Nuclear Station effective May 14, 2017. Audrey can be reached at (301) 415-0489, or at Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov.

Thanks, Steve Stephen S. Koenick Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 2-1 (LPL2-1)

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (DORL) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-6631 Stephen.Koenick@nrc.gov

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3608 Mail Envelope Properties (195c80fb0a1343b48b231ecc4fb4b2d8)

Subject:

NRC Notification of Intent to Issue License Amendment for Oconee Nuclear Station - Approval of one time change to technical specifications to allow time to replace the stator on each Keowee unit Sent Date: 5/10/2017 5:24:38 PM Received Date: 5/10/2017 5:24:40 PM From: Koenick, Stephen Created By: Stephen.Koenick@nrc.gov

Recipients: "Klett, Audrey" <Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "jenkinse@dhec.sc.gov" <jenkinse@dhec.sc.gov> Tracking Status: None

"'yeagerma@dhec.sc.gov'" <yeagerma@dhec.sc.gov> Tracking Status: None

Post Office: HQPWMSMRS02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3281 5/10/2017 5:24:40 PM 2016-15659 BWN Oconee Stator.pdf 266837 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: Follow up

43646 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. The facility

consists of two pressurized-water

reactors located in Mecklenburg County,

North Carolina.

II. Request/Action The regulation in 10 CFR 74.19, Recordkeeping, identifies

recordkeeping requirements applicable

to special nuclear material (SNM), and

10 CFR 74.19(c) requires, in part, that,

each licensee who is authorized to

possess special nuclear material, at any

one time and site location, in a quantity

greater than 350 grams of contained

uranium-235, uranium-233, or

plutonium, or any combination thereof,

shall conduct a physical inventory of all

special nuclear material in its

possession under license at intervals not

to exceed 12 months.

The licensee requested an exemption from certain recordkeeping

requirements in 10 CFR 74.19(c). The

exemption would allow the licensee to

seek relief from the physical inventory

requirements only for movable incore

nuclear detectors that have been

removed from service and stored in a

location that is not readily accessible

and is subject to security modifications.

The purpose of this request for

exemption is to allow an alternative to

the physical inventory-taking practices

for these non-fuel SNM incore detectors.

III. Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7, Specific exemptions, the Commission may,

upon application of any interested

person or upon its own initiative, grant

exemptions from the requirements of 10

CFR part 74 when the exemptions are

authorized by law and will not endanger

life or property or the common defense

and security, and are otherwise in the

public interest.

The Exemption Is Authorized by Law This exemption allows the licensee to have an alternative to the physical

inventory requirements of 10 CFR

74.19(c) only for movable incore nuclear

detectors that have been removed from

service. The NRC staff has determined

that granting the licensees proposed

exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7 will

not result in a violation of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the

Commissions regulations. Therefore,

the exemption is authorized by law.

The Exemption Presents No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 74.19(c) is to ensure SNM is properly

accounted for, appropriately secured,

and that authorities are informed of any theft, diversion, or loss. Based on the information provided, no new accident

precursors are created by the

description of actions the licensee has

provided concerning the physical

inventory for the incore nuclear

detectors. Thus, the probability of

postulated accidents is not increased.

Also, the consequences of postulated

accidents are not increased. Therefore,

there is no undue risk to public health

and safety.

The Exemption Is Consistent With the Common Defense and Security The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to address the physical

inventory of the non-fuel SNM. The

licensee indicated that the overall

alternative approach will continue to

meet the intent of the physical

inventory requirements of 10 CFR

74.19(c). Therefore, the common

defense and security are not impacted

by this exemption.

IV. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR

74.7, the exemption is authorized by

law, will not present an undue risk to

the public health and safety, and is

consistent with the common defense

and security. Therefore, the Commission

hereby grants Duke Energy Carolinas,

LLC an exemption from the physical

inventory requirements of 10 CFR

74.19(c) for McGuire.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, Finding of no significant impact, the Commission

has determined that the granting of this

exemption will not have a significant

effect on the quality of the human

environment as published in the

Federal Register on March 8, 2016 (81 FR 12132).

The exemption is effective upon issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Anne T. Boland,

Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2016-15868 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0127]

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Combined Licenses

Involving No Significant Hazards

Considerations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

The Act requires the Commission to

publish notice of any amendments

issued, or proposed to be issued, and

grants the Commission the authority to

issue and make immediately effective

any amendment to an operating license

or combined license, as applicable,

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from June 7, 2016,

to June 20, 2016. The last biweekly

notice was published on June 21, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 4, 2016. A request for a hearing

must be filed by September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES

You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless

this document describes a different

method for submitting comments on a

specific subject):

• Federal Rulemaking Web site:

Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0127. Address

questions about NRC dockets to Carol

Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463;

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

For technical questions, contact the

individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document.

• Mail comments to:

Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop:

OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555-0001.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments,

see Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT

Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00077Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43647 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC

20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927,

email: lynn.ronewicz@nrc.gov.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0127 when contacting the NRC about

the availability of information for this

action. You may obtain publicly-

available information related to this

action by any of the following methods:

• Federal rulemaking Web site:

Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0127.

• NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

(ADAMS):

You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the

ADAMS Public Documents collection at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html.

To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and then select Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.

For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at

1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

The ADAMS accession number for each

document referenced (if it is available in

ADAMS) is provided the first time that

it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

• NRCs PDR:

You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at

the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0127, facility name, unit number(s),

application date, and subject in your

comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that

you do not want to be publicly

disclosed in your comment submission.

The NRC will post all comment

submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS.

The NRC does not routinely edit

comment submissions to remove

identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for

submission to the NRC, then you should

inform those persons not to include

identifying or contact information that

they do not want to be publicly

disclosed in their comment submission.

Your request should state that the NRC

does not routinely edit comment

submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or

entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Combined Licenses and

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commissions regulations in

§50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment would

not (1) involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated, or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the

expiration of 60 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The

Commission may issue the license

amendment before expiration of the 60-

day period provided that its final

determination is that the amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration. In addition, the

Commission may issue the amendment

prior to the expiration of the 30-day

comment period if circumstances

change during the 30-day comment

period such that failure to act in a

timely way would result, for example in

derating or shutdown of the facility. If

the Commission takes action prior to the

expiration of either the comment period

or the notice period, it will publish in

the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a

final no significant hazards

consideration determination, any

hearing will take place after issuance.

The Commission expects that the need

to take this action will occur very

infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s)

whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license or

combined license. Requests for a

hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene shall be filed in accordance

with the Commissions Agency Rules

of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR

part 2. Interested person(s) should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,

which is available at the NRCs PDR,

located at One White Flint North, Room

O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The

NRCs regulations are accessible

electronically from the NRC Library on

the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-

collections/cfr/.

If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed

within 60 days, the Commission or a

presiding officer designated by the

Commission or by the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will

rule on the request and/or petition; and

the Secretary or the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of a hearing or an appropriate

order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following general requirements: (1) The

name, address, and telephone number of

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the

nature of the requestors/petitioners

right under the Act to be made a party

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and

extent of the requestors/petitioners

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (4) the possible

effect of any decision or order which

may be entered in the proceeding on the

requestors/petitioners interest. The

petition must also set forth the specific

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the

proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or

fact to be raised or controverted. In

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall

provide a brief explanation of the bases

for the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the requestor/petitioner

intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner

must also provide references to those VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00078Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43648 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on

which the requestor/petitioner intends

to rely to establish those facts or expert

opinion. The petition must include

sufficient information to show that a

genuine dispute exists with the

applicant on a material issue of law or

fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the requestor/

petitioner to relief. A requestor/

petitioner who fails to satisfy these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing with respect to resolution of

that persons admitted contentions,

including the opportunity to present

evidence and to submit a cross-

examination plan for cross-examination

of witnesses, consistent with NRC

regulations, policies and procedures.

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the

date of publication of this notice.

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave

to intervene, and motions for leave to

file new or amended contentions that

are filed after the 60-day deadline will

not be entertained absent a

determination by the presiding officer

that the filing demonstrates good cause

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR

2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). If a hearing is

requested, and the Commission has not

made a final determination on the issue

of no significant hazards consideration,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held. If the final

determination is that the amendment

request involves no significant hazards

consideration, the Commission may

issue the amendment and make it

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the request for a hearing. Any hearing

held would take place after issuance of

the amendment. If the final

determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards

consideration, then any hearing held

would take place before the issuance of

any amendment unless the Commission

finds an imminent danger to the health

or safety of the public, in which case it

will issue an appropriate order or rule

under 10 CFR part 2.

A State, local governmental body, federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party

under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition

should state the nature and extent of the

petitioners interest in the proceeding.

The petition should be submitted to the

Commission by September 6, 2016. The

petition must be filed in accordance

with the filing instructions in the

Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

section of this document, and should

meet the requirements for petitions for

leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under §2.309(h)(2)

a State, local governmental body, or

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or

agency thereof does not need to address

the standing requirements in 10 CFR

2.309(d) if the facility is located within

its boundaries. A State, local

governmental body, Federally-

recognized Indian Tribe, or agency

thereof, may also have the opportunity

to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified,

to become a party to the proceeding

may, in the discretion of the presiding

officer, be permitted to make a limited

appearance pursuant to the provisions

of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a

limited appearance may make an oral or

written statement of position on the

issues, but may not otherwise

participate in the proceeding. A limited

appearance may be made at any session

of the hearing or at any prehearing

conference, subject to the limits and

conditions as may be imposed by the

presiding officer. Persons desiring to

make a limited appearance are

requested to inform the Secretary of the

Commission by September 6, 2016.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a

request for hearing, a petition for leave

to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior

to the submission of a request for

hearing or petition to intervene, and

documents filed by interested

governmental entities participating

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in

accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule

(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-

Filing process requires participants to

submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital

identification (ID) certificate, which

allows the participant (or its counsel or

representative) to digitally sign

documents and access the E-Submittal

server for any proceeding in which it is

participating; and (2) advise the

Secretary that the participant will be

submitting a request or petition for

hearing (even in instances in which the

participant, or its counsel or

representative, already holds an NRC-

issued digital ID certificate). Based upon

this information, the Secretary will

establish an electronic docket for the

hearing in this proceeding if the

Secretary has not already established an

electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the

NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/

getting-started.html.

System requirements for accessing the E-

Submittal server are detailed in the

NRCs Guidance for Electronic

Submission, which is available on the

agencys public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-

submittals.html.

Participants may attempt to use other software not listed

on the Web site, but should note that the

NRCs E-Filing system does not support

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta

System Help Desk will not be able to

offer assistance in using unlisted

software.

If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the

participant must file the document

using the NRCs online, Web-based

submission form. In order to serve

documents through the Electronic

Information Exchange System, users

will be required to install a Web

browser plug-in from the NRCs Web

site. Further information on the Web-

based submission form, including the

installation of the Web browser plug-in,

is available on the NRCs public Web

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has

been created, the participant can then

submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions

should be in Portable Document Format

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance

available on the NRCs public Web site

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are

submitted through the NRCs E-Filing

system. To be timely, an electronic VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00079Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43649 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of

a transmission, the E-Filing system

time-stamps the document and sends

the submitter an email notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

E-Filing system also distributes an email

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRCs Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore,

applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRCs adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the

NRC Meta System Help Desk through

the Contact Us link located on the

NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-

submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC

Meta System Help Desk is available

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern

Time, Monday through Friday,

excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file an

exemption request, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper

filing requesting authorization to

continue to submit documents in paper

format. Such filings must be submitted

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the

Office of the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,

express mail, or expedited delivery

service to the Office of the Secretary,

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, 20852, Attention:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.

Participants filing a document in this

manner are responsible for serving the

document on all other participants.

Filing is considered complete by first-

class mail as of the time of deposit in

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or

expedited delivery service upon

depositing the document with the

provider of the service. A presiding

officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require

a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting

the exemption from use of E-Filing no

longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRCs

electronic hearing docket which is

available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/,

unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission,

or the presiding officer. Participants are

requested not to include personal

privacy information, such as social

security numbers, home addresses, or

home phone numbers in their filings,

unless an NRC regulation or other law

requires submission of such

information. However, in some

instances, a request to intervene will

require including information on local

residence in order to demonstrate a

proximity assertion of interest in the

proceeding. With respect to copyrighted

works, except for limited excerpts that

serve the purpose of the adjudicatory

filings and would constitute a Fair Use

application, participants are requested

not to include copyrighted materials in

their submission.

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice.

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave

to intervene, and motions for leave to

file new or amended contentions that

are filed after the 60-day deadline will

not be entertained absent a

determination by the presiding officer

that the filing demonstrates good cause

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR

2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

For further details with respect to these license amendment applications,

see the application for amendment,

which is available for public inspection

in ADAMS and at the NRCs PDR. For

additional direction on accessing

information related to this document,

see the Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments section of this

document.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request:

May 5, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML16134A068.

Description of amendment request:

The amendments would modify Technical Specifications (TSs) by the removal of Note (c), which is no longer applicable from TS Table 3.3.2-1, Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation, Function 6.f,

Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Suction

Transfer on Suction PressureLow, and the removal of an expired one-time Note for Required Action to restore

Diesel Generator to OPERABLE status

for TS 3.8.1, AC SourcesOperating.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. This LAR [license amendment request]

proposes administrative non-technical

changes only. These proposed changes do not

adversely affect accident initiators or

precursors nor alter the design assumptions,

conditions, or configurations of the facility.

The proposed changes do not alter or prevent

the ability of structures, systems and

components (SSCs) to perform their intended

function to mitigate the consequences of an

initiating event within the assumed

acceptance limits.

Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed

changes will not alter the design

requirements of any Structure, System or

Component (SSC) or its function during

accident conditions. No new or different

accidents result from the proposed changes.

The changes do not involve a physical

alteration of the plant or any changes in

methods governing normal plant operation.

The changes do not alter assumptions made

in the safety analysis.

Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:

No. This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed

changes do not alter the manner in which

safety limits, limiting safety system settings

or limiting conditions for operation are

determined. The safety analysis acceptance

criteria are not affected by these changes. The

proposed changes will not result in plant

operation in a configuration outside the

design basis. The proposed changes do not

adversely affect systems that respond to

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain

the plant in a safe shutdown condition.

Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00080Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43650 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy

Corporation, 526 South Church Street

EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.

NRC Branch Chief:

Michael T.

Markley.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and

3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:

February 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML16064A020.

Description of amendment request:

The amendments would revise

Technical Specifications (TSs) for the

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and

3 (Oconee). Specifically, the license

amendment request (LAR) would revise

TS 3.8.1, AC [Alternating Current]

SourcesOperating, Required Action

C.2.2.5, to allow each Keowee

Hydroelectric Unit to be taken out of

service for up to 55 days on a one-time

basis for the purpose of generator stator

replacement, subject to the

implementation of specified

contingency measures outlined in the

LAR. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below, with NRC edits in square

brackets:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for

Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required

Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring

compliance with TS Limiting Condition for

Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that

one Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is

inoperable for [greater than] 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, a Lee

Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing

both standby buses, two offsite power

sources will be maintained available, and

maintenance on electrical distribution

systems will not be performed unless

necessary. In addition, risk significant

systems (Emergency Feedwater System,

Protected Service Water System, and Standby

Shutdown Facility) will be verified operable (meeting LCO requirements) within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of entering TS 3.8.1 Condition C (

i.e., prior to use of the 55-day Completion Time of Required Action C.2.2.5). The temporary 55-

day Completion Time will decrease the

likelihood of an unplanned forced shutdown

of all three Oconee Units and the potential safety consequences and operational risks associated with that action. Avoiding this

risk offsets the risks associated with having

a design basis event during the temporary 55-

day completion time for having one KHU

inoperable.

The temporary addition of the 55-day Completion Time does not involve: (1) A

physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2)

the installation of new or different

equipment; (3) operating any installed

equipment in a new or different manner; or

(4) a change to any set points for parameters

which initiate protective or mitigation action.

There is no adverse impact on containment integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel

design, filtration systems, main steam relief

valve set points, or radwaste systems. No

new radiological release pathways are

created.

The consequences of an event occurring during the temporary 55-day Completion

Time are the same as those that would occur

during the existing Completion Time. Duke

Energy reviewed the Probabilistic Risk

Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights

concerning the configuration of [Oconee]

with one KHU. The results of the risk

analysis show a risk improvement if no

maintenance is performed on the SSF, EFW System and AC Power System. The results of

the risk analysis show a small risk increase

using the average nominal maintenance

unavailability values for the SSF, EFW

System and AC Power System.

By limiting maintenance, the risk results are expected to be between these two

extremes (

i.e., small risk impact).

Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with

restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.

During the time period that one KHU is

inoperable, the redundancy requirement for

the emergency power source will be fulfilled

by an LCT. Compensatory measures

previously specified will be in place to

minimize electrical power system

vulnerabilities.

The temporary 55-day Completion Time does not involve a physical effect on the

Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk

of an Oconee Unit trip or reactivity

excursion. No new failure modes or credible

accident scenarios are postulated from this

activity.

Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of

accident previously evaluated is not created.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:

No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.

During the time period that one KHU is

inoperable, the redundancy requirement for

the emergency power source will be fulfilled

by an LCT. Compensatory measures

previously specified will be in place to

minimize electrical power system

vulnerabilities.

The proposed TS change does not involve:

(1) a physical alteration of the Oconee Units;

(2) the installation of new or different

equipment; (3) operating any installed

equipment in a new or different manner; (4)

a change to any set points for parameters

which initiate protective or mitigation action;

or (5) any impact on the fission product

barriers or safety limits.

Therefore, this request does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy

Corporation, 526 S. Church St.EC07H,

Charlotte, NC 28202.

NRC Branch Chief:

Michael T.

Markley.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos.

50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP),

Brunswick County, North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York

County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.

50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power

Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County,

North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and

3, Oconee County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.

50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric

Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington

County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:

April 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in

ADAMS under Accession No.

ML16120A076.

Description of amendment request:

The amendments would (1) consolidate

the Emergency Operations Facilities

(EOFs) for BSEP, HNP, and RNP with

the Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00081Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43651 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices Energy) corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina; (2) change the BSEP,

HNP, and RNP augmentation times to be

consistent with those of the sites

currently supported by the Duke Energy

corporate EOF; and (3) decrease the

frequency of the unannounced

augmentation drill at BSEP from twice

per year to once per year.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed changes relocate the BSEP, HNP, and RNP EOFs from their present

onsite or near-site locations to the established

corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina,

changes the required response times for

supplementing onsite personnel in response

to a radiological emergency, and decreases

the frequency of augmentation drills at BSEP.

The functions and capabilities of the

relocated EOFs will continue to meet the

applicable regulatory requirements. It has

been evaluated and determined that the

change in response time does not

significantly affect the ability to supplement

the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows

that the onsite staff can acceptably respond

to an event for longer than the requested time

for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed

changes have no effect on normal plant

operation or on any accident initiator or

precursors, and do not impact the function of

plant structures, systems, or components

(SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or

prevent the ability of the emergency response

organization to perform its intended

functions to mitigate the consequences of an

accident or event. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed changes only impact the implementation of the affected stations

emergency plans by relocating their onsite or

near-site EOFs to the established corporate

EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changing

the required response time of responders

who supplement the onsite staff, and

decreasing the frequency of augmentation

drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities

of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet

the applicable regulatory requirements. It has

been evaluated and determined that the

change in response time does not

significantly affect the ability to supplement

the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows

that the onsite staff can acceptably respond

to an event for longer than the requested time

for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed changes will not change the design function or operation of SSCs. The changes do not

impact the accident analysis. The changes do

not involve a physical alteration of the plant,

a change in the method of plant operation,

or new operator actions. The proposed

changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the

changes do not alter assumptions made in the

safety analysis.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:

No. The proposed changes only impacts the implementation of the affected stations

emergency plans by relocating their onsite or

near-site EOFs to the established corporate

EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changing

the required response time of responders

who supplement the onsite staff, and

decreasing the frequency of augmentation

drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities

of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet

the applicable regulatory requirements. It has

been evaluated and determined that the

change in response time does not

significantly affect the ability to supplement

the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows

that the onsite staff can acceptably respond

to an event for longer than the requested time

for augmented staff to arrive. Margin of safety

is associated with confidence in the ability of

the fission product barriers (

i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure

boundary, and containment structure) to

limit the level of radiation dose to the public.

The proposed changes are associated with

the emergency plans and do not impact

operation of the plant or its response to

transients or accidents. The changes do not

affect the Technical Specifications. The

changes do not involve a change in the

method of plant operation, and no accident

analyses will be affected by the proposed

changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria

are not affected. The emergency plans will

continue to provide the necessary response

staff for emergencies as demonstrated by

staffing and functional analyses including the

necessary timeliness of performing major

tasks for the functional areas of the

emergency plans.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy

Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street,

Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC

28202. NRC Acting Branch Chief:

Tracy J.

Orf. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.

50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric

Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2), Darlington

County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:

April 24, 2016. A publicly-available version is in

ADAMS under Accession No.

ML16116A033.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would adopt Technical

Specifications Task Force (TSTF)

Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 2,

Relocated TS Parameters to COLR.

Based on TSTF-339, the proposed

amendment would relocate reactor

coolant system (RCS)-related cycle-

specific parameters and core safety

limits from the technical specifications

(TSs) to the Core Operating Limits

Report (COLR).

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The relocation of RCS-related cycle-specific parameter limits from the TS to the

COLR proposed by this amendment request

does not result in the alteration of the design,

material, or construction standards that were

applicable prior to the change. The proposed

change will not result in the modification of

any system interface that would increase the

likelihood of an accident since these events

are independent of the proposed change. The

proposed amendment will not change,

degrade, or prevent actions, or alter any

assumptions previously made in evaluating

the radiological consequences of an accident

described in the Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the

proposed amendment does not result in an

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

There are no new accident causal mechanisms created as a result of NRC

approval of this amendment request. No

changes are being made to the facility which

would introduce any new accident causal

mechanisms. This amendment request does

not impact any plant systems that are

accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed

change does not create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in margin of safety?

Response: No.

Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant reduction in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00082Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43652 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices margin of safety. Previously approved methodologies will continue to be used in

the determination of cycle-specific core

operating limits that are present in the COLR.

Additionally, previously approved RCS

minimum total flow rates for HBRSEP2 are

retained in the TS to assure that lower flow

rates will not be used without prior NRC

approval. Based on the above, it is concluded

that the proposed license amendment request

does not impact any safety margins and will

not result in a reduction in margin with

respect to plant safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy

Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street,

Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC

28202. NRC Acting Branch Chief:

Robert G.

Schaaf. Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point

Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4,

Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request:

April 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in

ADAMS under Accession No.

ML16110A266.

Description of amendment request:

The amendments would revise the

Technical Specifications (TS)

requirements for snubbers. The licensee

proposed to revise the TSs to conform

to the licensees Snubber Testing

Program. The proposed changes include

additions to, deletions from, and

conforming administrative changes to

the TSs.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed changes would revise TS SR

[Surveillance Requirement] 4.7.6 to conform

the TS to the revised surveillance program

for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing

and service life monitoring will continue to

meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g).

Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not an initiator of any

accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the

probability of an accident previously

evaluated is not significantly increased.

Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR

50.55a or authorized alternatives. The

proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for

inoperable snubbers is administrative in

nature and is required for consistency with

the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The

proposed change does not adversely affect

plant operations, design functions or

analyses that verify the capability of systems,

structures, and components to perform their

design functions therefore, the consequences

of accidents previously evaluated are not

significantly increased.

Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment. The

proposed changes do not alter the method by

which any safety-related system performs its

function. As such, no new or different types

of equipment will be installed, and the basic

operation of installed equipment is

unchanged. The methods governing plant

operation and testing remain consistent with

current safety analysis assumptions.

Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:

No. The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and service life

monitoring will continue to meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers

will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE

by performance of a program for

examination, testing and service life

monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR

50.55a or authorized alternatives.

The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for inoperable snubbers is

administrative in nature and is required for

consistency with the proposed change to TS

SR 4.7.6.

Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

William S.

Blair, Managing AttorneyNuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno

Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Branch Chief:

Benjamin G.

Beasley.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public

Service Authority, Docket Nos.52-027

and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear

Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3,

Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:

May 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is in

ADAMS under Accession No.

ML16137A171.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed changes, if approved for

the VCSNS, involve departures from

incorporated plant-specific Tier 2

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(UFSAR) information and conforming

changes to the combined license

Appendix C, as well as conforming

changes to the plant-specific Tier 1

information, to ensure that the design

bases Tier 2 information conforms with

the originally certified design. The

licensee stated in its application that the

changes are editorial, and with one

exception, bring the plant-specific Tier

1 and Combined License (COL)

Appendix C into alignment with the

information contained in plant-specific

Tier 2. In addition, the licensee

requested a change to COL License

Condition 2.D(12)(f)1 to correct a

reference to a seismic interaction review

discussed in the AP1000 design

certification document, Revision 19,

Section 3.7.5.3.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)

and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one

COL paragraph 2.D change, do not involve a

technical change, (

e.g., there is no design parameter or requirement, calculation,

analysis, function or qualification change).

No structure, system, component design or

function would be affected. No design or

safety analysis would be affected. The

proposed changes do not affect any accident

initiating event or component failure, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously

evaluated are not affected. No function used

to mitigate a radioactive material release and

no radioactive material release source term is

involved, thus the radiological releases in the

accident analyses are not affected.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00083Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43653 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)

and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one

COL paragraph 2.D change, would not affect

the design or function of any structure,

system, component (SSC), but will instead

provide consistency between the SSC designs

and functions currently presented in the

UFSAR and the Tier 1 information. The

proposed changes would not introduce a new

failure mode, fault or sequence of events that

could result in a radioactive material release.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:

No. The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)

and involved Tier 2 update, along with one

COL paragraph 2.D change, is non-technical,

thus would not affect any design parameter,

function or analysis. There would be no

change to an existing design basis, design

function, regulatory criterion, or analysis. No

safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is involved. Therefore, the

proposed amendment does not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Ms. Kathryn M.

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20004-2514.

NRC Acting Branch Chief:

Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.52-027 and 52-

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield

County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:

May 12, 2016. A publicly-available version is

available in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML16133A382.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed changes, if approved for

the VCSNS, involve departures from

incorporated plant-specific Tier 2

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(UFSAR) information and changes to the

combined license Appendix A

Technical Specifications to ensure that

the listed minimum volume of the

passive core cooling system core

makeup tanks are aligned with the

current inspections tests analyses and

acceptance criteria and the relevant

safety analysis.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT [Core Makeup Tank] volume

in the COL [combined operating license]

Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and

UFSAR information to be consistent with the

plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C

requirements. Because the new minimum

volume is bounded by the current analyses,

the proposed activity does not alter the

design of an accident initiating component or

system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident

previously evaluated are not affected. The

proposed activity does not involve other

safety-related equipment or radioactive

material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity

does not affect an accident mitigation

function.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix

A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR

information to be consistent with the plant-

specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C

requirements. No results or conclusions of

any design or safety analyses are affected. No

system or design function or equipment

qualification is affected by the changes. The

changes do not result in a new failure mode,

malfunction or sequence of events that could

affect safety or safety-related equipment. This

activity does not allow for a new fission

product release path, result in a new fission

product barrier failure mode, or create a new

sequence of events that results in significant

fuel cladding failures.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:

No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix

A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR

information to be consistent with the plant-

specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C

requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety analyses are affected. No

system design function or equipment is

altered by this activity, and the proposed

changes do not alter any design code, safety

classification, or design margin. No safety

analysis or design basis limit is involved

with the requested change, and consequently,

no margin of safety is reduced.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Ms. Kathryn M.

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20004-2514.

NRC Acting Branch Chief:

Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units

3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:

May 18, 2016. A publicly-available version is in

ADAMS under Accession No.

ML16139A796.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment request proposes

changes to the technical specifications

(TS) and Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR) in the form of

departures from the incorporated plant-

specific Design Control Document Tier

2 information. Specifically, the

proposed departures consist of changes

to the TS and UFSAR to revise the

minimum volume of the passive core

cooling system core makeup tanks.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT [core makeup tank] volume

in the COL [combined operating license]

Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent with the

plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C

requirements. Because the new minimum

volume is bounded by the current analyses,

the proposed activity does not alter the

design of an accident initiating component or

system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident

previously evaluated are not affected. The

proposed activity does not involve other

safety-related equipment or radioactive

material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity

does not affect an accident mitigation

function.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00084Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43654 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response:

No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix

A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR

information to be consistent with the plant-

specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C

requirements. No results or conclusions of

any design or safety analyses are affected. No

system or design function or equipment

qualification is affected by the changes. The

changes do not result in a new failure mode,

malfunction or sequence of events that could

affect safety or safety-related equipment. This

activity does not allow for a new fission

product release path, result in a new fission

product barrier failure mode, or create a new

sequence of events that results in significant

fuel cladding failures.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:

No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix

A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR

information to be consistent with the plant-

specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C

requirements. No results or conclusions of

any design or safety analyses are affected. No

system design function or equipment is

altered by this activity, and the proposed

changes do not alter any design code, safety

classification, or design margin. No safety

analysis or design basis limit is involved

with the requested change, and consequently,

no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the

proposed amendment does not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL

35203-2015.

NRC Acting Branch Chief:

Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and

Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the

Commission has issued the following

amendments. The Commission has

determined for each of these

amendments that the application

complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the

Commissions rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendments.

A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating

license or combined license, as

applicable, proposed no significant

hazards consideration determination,

and opportunity for a hearing in

connection with these actions, was

published in the Federal Register as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these

amendments satisfy the criteria for

categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for these

amendments. If the Commission has

prepared an environmental assessment

under the special circumstances

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has

made a determination based on that

assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action, see (1) the applications for

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)

the Commissions related letter, safety

evaluation, and/or environmental

assessment, as indicated. All of these

items can be accessed as described in

the Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments section of this

document.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and

3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:

July 17, 2015. Brief description of amendments:

The amendments correct a usage problem

with recently issued Amendment Nos.

382, 384, and 383 (ADAMS Accession

No. ML13231A013), which precludes

Oconee Nuclear Station Technical

Specification (TS) 3.8.1, AC

[Alternating Current] Sources

Operating, Condition H, from being

used as planned. The change revises the

note to TS 3.8.1, Required Actions L.1,

L.2, and L.3 to delete the 12-hour time

limitation when the second Keowee

Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is made

inoperable for the purpose of restoring

the KHU undergoing maintenance to

OPERABLE status. Deletion of the 12-

hour time limitation allows the use of

the full 60-hour Completion Time of

Required Action H.2 when the unit(s)

have been in Condition C for greater

than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, and both units are made

inoperable for the purpose of restoring the KHU undergoing maintenance to OPERABLE status.

Date of issuance:

June 6, 2016.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 60 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

400 (Unit 1), 402 (Unit 2), and 401 (Unit 3). A publicly-

available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML16138A332;

documents related to these amendments

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:

The amendments revised the Renewed

Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69710). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear

Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth

County, Massachusetts Date of amendment request:

July 15, 2015. Brief description of amendment:

The amendment approved the revised

schedule for full implementation of the

Cyber Security Plan (CSP) for Milestone

8 by extending the date from June 30,

2016, to December 15, 2017, and revised

paragraphs 3.B and 3.G of Facility

Operating License No. DPR-35 for PNPS

to incorporate the revised CSP

implementation schedule.

Date of issuance:

June 6, 2016.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 30 days.

Amendment No.:

244. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML16082A460;

documents related to this amendment

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendment.

Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65812). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00085Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43655 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-

412, Beaver Valley Power Station

(BVPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver

County, Pennsylvania Docket No. 50-

346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

(DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,

Ohio Date of application for amendments:

November 19, 2015, as supplemented by

letter dated March 22, 2016.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments changed the BVPS and

DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs).

Specifically, the license amendments

revised TS 5.3.1, Unit Staff

Qualifications, by incorporating an

exception to American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard

N18.1-1971, Selection and Training of

Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, such

that licensed operators are only required

to comply with the requirements of 10

CFR part 55, Operators Licenses.

Date of issuance:

June 7, 2016.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 90 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

297 and 185 for BVPS, Units 1 and 2, and 292 for

DBNPS, Unit 1. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML16040A084. Documents related

to these amendments are listed in the

Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the

amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, and NPF-3:

The amendments revised the TSs and

Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR 2918). The supplemental letter dated

March 22, 2016, contained clarifying

information and did not change the NRC

staffs initial proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an

SE dated June 7, 2016.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant,

Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell

County, Texas Date of amendment request:

June 30, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated

January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments revised the current

emergency action level scheme for

CPNPP to a scheme based on Nuclear

Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6,

Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors, November 2012.

Date of issuance:

June 14, 2016.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 270 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

166 (Unit 1) and 166 (Unit 2). A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML16137A056; documents related

to these amendments are listed in the

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the

amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:

The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses

to authorize revision to the CPNPP Emergency Plan.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR 48923), and corrected on August 20,

2015 (80 FR 50663). The supplemental

letters dated January 27, 2016, and

March 3, 2016, provided additional

information that clarified the

application, did not expand the scope of

the application as originally noticed,

and did not change the staffs original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register

. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2016.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Northern States Power Company Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,

Minnesota Date of amendment request:

June 29, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated

December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016;

March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments revised surveillance

requirements (SRs) related to gas

accumulation for the emergency core

cooling system and added new SRs

related to gas accumulation for the

residual heat removal and containment

spray systems, consistent with NRC-

approved Technical Specifications Task

Force (TSTF) Standard Technical

Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-

523, Revision 2, Generic Letter 2008-

01, Managing Gas Accumulation.

Date of issuance:

June 16, 2016.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 90 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

217 (Unit 1) and 205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML16133A406; documents related

to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60:

The amendments revised the Renewed

Facility Operating Licenses and

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61484). The supplemental letters dated

December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016;

March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016,

provided additional information that

clarified the application, did not expand

the scope of the application as originally

noticed, and did not change the staffs

original proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register

. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2016.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:

September 11, 2015.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment revised the Technical

Specifications (TSs) to provide a short

Completion Time to restore an

inoperable system for conditions under

which the existing TSs require a plant

shutdown. The amendment is consistent

with NRC-approved Technical

Specifications Task Force (TSTF)

Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, Revise

or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into

LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]

3.0.3RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]

Initiatives 6b & 6c, with certain plant-

specific administrative variations.

Date of issuance:

June 8, 2016.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 90 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment No.:

288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML16139A804;

documents related to this amendment

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendment.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:

The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License

and TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73239). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2016.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00086Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43656 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425,

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1

and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:

July 18, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated

February 27, 2015, and May 2, 2016.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments revised 22 Technical

Specifications (TSs) by adopting

multiple previously NRC-approved

Technical Specifications Task Force

(TSTF) Travelers. One proposed change

is not included in this license

amendment and will be addressed by

further correspondence. Southern

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC)

stated that these TSTF Travelers are

generic changes chosen to increase the

consistency between the Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant TSs, the Improved

Standard Technical Specifications for

Westinghouse plants (NUREG-1431),

and the TSs of the other plants in the

SNC fleet.

Date of issuance:

June 9, 2016.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 120 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

180 (Unit 1) and 161 (Unit 2). A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML15132A569; documents related

to these amendments are listed in the

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the

amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:

Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11480).

The supplemental letters dated February

27, 2015, and May 2, 2016, provided

additional information that clarified the

application, did not expand the scope of

the application as originally noticed,

and did not change the staffs original

proposal no significant hazards

consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register

. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated June 9, 2016.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph

M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request:

April 13, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated

September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments consist of changes to the

Technical Specifications consistent with

the NRC-approved Technical

Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler-432, Revision 1,

Change in Technical Specifications

End States (WCAP-16294), dated

November 29, 2010.

Date of issuance:

June 10, 2016.

Effective date:

As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 90 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

202 (Unit 1) and 198 (Unit 2). A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML15289A227; documents related

to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8:

The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating

Licenses and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30102).

The supplemental letters dated

September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016,

provided additional information that

clarified the application, did not expand

the scope of the application as originally

noticed, and did not change the staffs

original proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register

. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 2016.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Anne T. Boland,

Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2016-15659 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-390; NRC-2016-0131]

Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;

issuance.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating License No. NFP-90, issued

February 7, 1996, and held by the

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the

licensee) for the operation of Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1,

Fuel Assemblies; TS 3.5.1

Accumulators; Surveillance

Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4; TS 3.5.4,

Refueling Water Storage Tank; and SR 3.5.4.3, to increase the maximum

number of tritium producing burnable

absorber rods (TPBARs) and to delete

outdated information related to the

tritium production program. The NRC

staff is issuing an environmental

assessment (EA) and finding of no

significant impact (FONSI) associated

with the proposed license amendment.

DATES: The Environmental assessment referenced in this document is available

on July 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0131 when contacting the

NRC about the availability of

information regarding this document.

You may obtain publicly-available

information related to this document

using any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site

Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0131. Address

questions about NRC dockets to Carol

Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463;

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

For technical questions, contact the

individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document.

• NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

(ADAMS):

You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the

ADAMS Public Documents collection at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html.

To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and then select Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.

For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at

1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS

accession numbers are provided in a

table in the AVAILABILITY OF

DOCUMENTS section of this document.

• NRCs PDR:

You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at

the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT

Robert Schaaf, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001; telephone: 301-415-6020, email:

Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00087Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES