Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7835 

1See 75 FR 68,624, 68,624 (Nov. 8, 2010). 

2The existing nuclear power facilities are Salem 

Generating Station Units 1 and 2 and Hope Creek 

Generating Station Unit 1. Safety Evaluation of the 

Early Site Permit Application in the Matter of PSEG 

Power, LLC and PSEG Nuclear, LLC for the PSEG 

Early Site Permit Site (Sept. 29, 2015) at 1–1 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML14302A447). 

3See Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling 

Order) (Nov. 16, 2015) at Attach. A (unpublished). 

4See 75 FR 68,625. 

5 10 CFR 2.315(a). 

Lodge Project, which includes a mine 

for the purpose of extracting rare earth 

element ores in the Black Hills National 

Forest in Crook County, Wyoming and 

a rare earth element processing plant in 

Weston County, Wyoming. In response 

to a notice filed in the Federal Register, 

see 80 FR 70,846 (Nov. 16, 2015), the 

Defenders of the Black Hills filed a 

Request for a Hearing dated January 14, 

2016, and received by Office of the 

Secretary on January 15, 2016. 

The Board is comprised of the 

following Administrative Judges: 

William J. Froehlich, Chair, Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001 

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001 

Nicholas G. Trikouros, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001 

All correspondence, documents, and 

other materials shall be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule. 

See 10 CFR 2.302. 

Rockville, Maryland. 

Dated: February 9, 2016. 

E. Roy Hawkens, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03055 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 52–043–ESP; ASLBP No. 15– 

943–01–ESP–BD01] 

Atomic Safety And Licensing Board; 

Before Administrative Judges: Paul S. 

Ryerson, Chairman, Dr. Gary S. Arnold, 

Dr. Craig M. White; In the Matter of 

PSEG Power, LLC and PSEG Nuclear, 

LLC (Early Site Permit Application); 

Notice of Hearing 

February 8, 2016. 

The Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board gives notice that, pursuant to 

section 189a(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 2239(a)(1)(A), and 10 CFR 

52.21, it will convene an uncontested 

mandatory hearing on March 24, 2016 to 

receive testimony and exhibits regarding 

an application from PSEG Power, LLC 

and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (collectively 

PSEG) for a 10 CFR part 52, subpart A 

Early Site Permit (ESP).1 In its ESP 

application, PSEG proposes a site for a 

potential nuclear power facility adjacent 

to two existing facilities in Salem 

County, New Jersey (the PSEG Site).2

This mandatory hearing will concern 

safety and environmental matters 

relating to the proposed issuance of the 

requested ESP.3

I. Hearing Date, Time, and Location 

The evidentiary hearing will 

commence on Thursday, March 24, 

2016 at 9:00 a.m. EDT, and, if necessary, 

will continue day-to-day thereafter until 

concluded. The evidentiary hearing will 

take place in the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel’s hearing room, 

located within the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s headquarters at 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. Members of the public who wish 

to observe the mandatory hearing are 

advised to arrive early. Security 

measures will include searches of 

handcarried items such as briefcases or 

backpacks. 

II. Limited Appearance Statements 

No petition was received in response 

to the NRC’s notice in the Federal 

Register of an opportunity to seek to 

intervene.4 Participation in the 

evidentiary hearing will be limited to 

the designated witnesses and counsel 

for the parties. 

Prior to the evidentiary hearing, any 

person (other than a party or the 

representative of a party to this 

proceeding) may nonetheless submit a 

written limited appearance statement 

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.315(a) that sets 

forth a position on matters related to 

this proceeding. Limited appearance 

statements should be emailed to 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov. As provided by 

NRC regulations, however, no limited 

appearance statement shall be 

considered as evidence.5

III. Document Availability 

Documents relating to this proceeding 

(including any updated or revised 

scheduling information regarding the 

evidentiary hearing) are available for 

public inspection electronically on the 

NRC’s Electronic Hearing Docket (EHD). 

EHD is accessible from the NRC Web 

site at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd. For 

additional information regarding the 

EHD please see http://www.nrc.gov/

about-nrc/regulatory/

adjudicatory.html#ehd. Persons who do 

not have access to the internet or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located on the NRC’s Web 

site may contact the NRC Public 

Document Room reference staff by email 

to pdr@nrc.gov or by telephone at (800) 

397–4209 or (301) 415–4737. Reference 

staff are available Monday through 

Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

ET, except federal holidays. For 

additional information regarding the 

NRC Public Document Room please see 

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

pdr.html. 

It is so ordered. 

For The Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board. Rockville, Maryland. 

Dated: February 8, 2016. 

Paul S. Ryerson, 

Chairman, Administrative Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03054 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2016–0026] 

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 (AEA), 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 January 16, 

2016, to February 1, 2016. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

February 2, 2016. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

March 17, 2016. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by April 18, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7836 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

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–2016–0026. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

2242, email: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– 

0026 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable 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–2016–0026. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to 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 of this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2016– 

0026, facility name, unit number(s), 

application date, and subject in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, (2) create 

the possibility of a new or different kind 

of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated, or (3) involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. The basis for this proposed 

determination for each amendment 

request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

within 60 days, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7837 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also set forth the specific 

contentions which the requestor/ 

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/ 

petitioner to relief. A requestor/ 

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that person’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence and to submit a crossexamination plan for cross-examination 

of witnesses, consistent with NRC 

regulations, policies and procedures. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, then any hearing held 

would take place before the issuance of 

any amendment unless the Commission 

finds an imminent danger to the health 

or safety of the public, in which case it 

will issue an appropriate order or rule 

under 10 CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

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

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission by April 18, 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, Federallyrecognized 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 April 18, 2016. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may 

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7838 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, in some 

instances, a request to intervene will 

require including information on local 

residence in order to demonstrate a 

proximity assertion of interest in the 

proceeding. With respect to copyrighted 

works, except for limited excerpts that 

serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 

filings and would constitute a Fair Use 

application, participants are requested 

not to include copyrighted materials in 

their submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 

(ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: 

December 22, 2015. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15356A657. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to add a 

short Allowed Outage Time (AOT) to 

restore an inoperable system for 

conditions under which the existing 

specifications require a plant shutdown. 

The proposed amendment is consistent 

with the NRC-approved Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

change traveler TSTF–426, Revision 5, 

‘‘Revise or Add Actions to Preclude 

Entry into LCO [Limiting Condition for 

Operation] 3.0.3—RITSTF [RiskInformed TSTF] Initiatives 6b & 6c.’’ 

The availability of TSTF–426, Revision 

5, was published in the Federal Register 

on May 30, 2013 (78 FR 32476). The 

AOT would be added to specifications 

governing the pressurizer heaters, 

containment spray trains, and control 

room emergency air conditioning and 

ventilation systems. In addition to the 

scope of the TSTF–426 TSs revisions, 

the amendment would add a TS Action 

to address a single pressurizer 

proportional heater group having a 

capacity of less than 150 kilowatts. 

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, with NRC staff revisions 

provided in [brackets], which is 

presented below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change provides a short AOT 

to restore an inoperable system for conditions 

under which the existing TSs require a plant 

shutdown to begin within one hour in 

accordance with LCO 3.0.3. In addition, a 

new TS Action associated with Pressurizer 

proportional heater capacity for a single 

proportional heater group is proposed. 

Entering into TS Actions is not an initiator 

of any accident previously evaluated. As a 

result, the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated is not significantly 

increased. The consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated that may occur during 

the proposed AOTs are no different from the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7839 

consequences of the same accident during 

the existing one-hour allowance. As a result, 

the consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents result from 

utilizing the proposed change. The proposed 

change does not involve a physical alteration 

of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of 

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. In addition, the proposed change 

does not impose any new or different 

requirements. The proposed change does not 

alter assumptions made in the safety 

analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change increases the time 

the plant may operate without the ability to 

perform an assumed safety function. The 

analyses in WCAP–16125–NP–A, 

‘‘Justification for Risk-Informed 

Modifications to Selected Technical 

Specifications for Conditions Leading to 

Exigent plant Shutdown,’’ Revision 2, August 

2010, demonstrated that there is an 

acceptably small increase in risk due to a 

limited period of continued operation in 

these conditions and that this risk is 

balanced by avoiding the risks associated 

with a plant shutdown. As a result, the 

change to the margin of safety provided by 

requiring a plant shutdown within one hour 

is not significant. 

The new Pressurizer proportional heater 

capacity Action permits 72 hours to restore 

the affect heater group to an operable status, 

consistent with the STS [Standard TSs] and 

consistent with TS requirements associated 

with single train inoperabilities. The 

proportional heaters are not credited in the 

ANO–2 accident analyses, but aid in 

Pressurizer pressure control during a loss of 

offsite power event that results in the need 

to perform a natural circulation cool down of 

the plant. The associated STS bases for the 

standard 72-hour AOT assumes [that] the 

likelihood of a loss of offsite power event 

during this time period that would require a 

demand on the proportional heaters is 

minimal and acknowledges the use of nonvital powered backup heater groups absent a 

loss of offsite power event. Note also that 

under emergency conditions, an Emergency 

Diesel Generator or the Alternate AC 

[alternating current] Diesel Generator (i.e., 

Station Blackout diesel) can be aligned to 

power any of the non-vital Pressurizer 

backup heater groups. As a result, the change 

to the margin of safety provided by the new 

72-hour AOT for a single proportional heater 

train is not significant. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: October 

15, 2015. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15301A765. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the St. 

Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses’ licensing 

bases to allow the use of the 

commercially available code 

‘‘Generation of Thermal-Hydraulic 

Information for Containments (GOTHIC 

Version 7.2b(QA)),’’ to model the 

containment response following the 

inadvertent actuation of the 

containment spray system during 

normal plant operation (referred to as 

the vacuum analysis). The amendments 

would also update the licensing bases to 

credit the design-basis ability of the 

containment vessel to withstand a 

higher external pressure differential of 

1.04 pounds per square inch (psi) (1.05 

psi for Unit No. 2), and will update 

Technical Specification 3.6.1.4 for both 

units to revise the allowable 

containment operating pressure range. 

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 proposed amendment is related to the 

analysis of the maximum external pressure 

that the reactor containment building will 

experience. A proposed change to the 

Technical Specifications will limit the 

allowable external pressure during operation 

to a value consistent with that considered in 

the analysis. The analysis is being revised to 

consider containment spray pump flow 

higher than previously considered. 

Containment spray pumps cool and 

depressurize the containment building; 

therefore, higher flow impacts the analysis of 

external pressure on the containment 

building. The proposed amendment is for the 

use of a different analysis methodology using 

the GOTHIC computer code instead of the A– 

TEMPT and WATEMPT codes that were 

originally used for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 

analyses respectively. The original codes are 

not currently available. The GOTHIC code is 

an accepted code for similar analysis. The 

analysis performed demonstrates that in the 

postulated event of an inadvertent start of 

two containment spray pumps, the loading 

the reactor containment building will 

experience is within the design of the 

structure. With this load, the stresses 

experienced by the reactor containment 

building remain below the code allowable 

stresses. 

The probability of occurrence of an event 

that would expose the containment building 

to external pressure is not increased by the 

change in the analysis methodology used. 

The probability of the initiating event, 

inadvertent start of both containment spray 

pumps, is unchanged. 

The consequences of an event where the 

containment building is exposed to external 

pressure will not be increased as the 

resulting external pressure on the 

containment vessel remains within the 

design, which provides a large margin to the 

buckling pressure. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This proposed amendment changes the 

methodology for analyzing an event that 

results in exposing the reactor containment 

vessel to external pressure. A proposed 

change to the Technical Specifications will 

limit the external pressure during operation 

to a value consistent with the initial 

condition considered in the analysis. The 

potential for a new or different kind of 

accident is not created by the use of a 

different analysis methodology for a 

previously defined event. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

This proposed amendment changes the 

methodology for analyzing an event that 

results in exposing the reactor containment 

building to external pressure. A proposed 

change to the Technical Specifications will 

limit the allowable external pressure during 

operation to a value consistent with the 

starting point considered in the analysis. The 

technical evaluation demonstrates that the 

use of the GOTHIC computer code to 

determine maximum containment external 

pressure will result in realistic results similar 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7840 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

to the original analysis with the A–TEMPT 

and WATEMPT codes. The margin of safety 

in this analysis is maintained by assuring the 

resulting external pressure acting on the 

reactor containment vessel maintains 

significant margin to the buckling pressure in 

accordance with Section III of the ASME 

[American Society of Mechanical Engineers] 

code. For Unit 2, the original code of record 

limited the maximum external pressure to 1⁄3

of the expected buckling pressure. The 

analysis of the increased external pressure for 

Unit 2 has been performed in accordance 

with the original code of record. The original 

code of record for Unit 1 was under 

development at the time and made reference 

to ASME Section VIII for the analysis of 

external pressure. The rules of ASME Section 

VIII at that time limited the maximum 

external pressure to 1⁄4 of the expected 

buckling pressure. In order to increase the 

allowable external pressure, the analysis of 

external pressure was performed using a later 

version of the ASME code which allows a 

maximum external pressure of 1⁄3 of the 

buckling pressure. The later version of the 

code used for Unit 1 uses a methodology for 

determining the maximum external pressure 

consistent with the code used for Unit 2. 

Although the margin between the 

allowable external pressure and the expected 

buckling pressure for Unit 1 will be changed 

from a factor of 4 to a factor of 3, substantial 

margin is maintained in accordance with 

more current versions of ASME III. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light Company, 700 

Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/JB, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

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: 

December 17, 2015. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15351A165. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change, if approved, 

would amend Combined License (COL) 

Nos. NPF–93 and NPF–94 for VCSNS. 

The requested amendment proposes to 

rename, relocate, and add radiation 

detectors to provide monitoring of the 

radiologically controlled area 

ventilation system (VAS) exhaust from 

the radiologically controlled areas of the 

auxiliary building and annex building. 

The changes in the proposed 

amendment are located primarily in the 

VCSNS Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 information, and 

involve require conforming changes to 

COL Appendix C, ‘‘Inspections, Tests, 

Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria,’’ and 

departing from certified AP1000 Design 

Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 

information. Because, this proposed 

change requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the 

licensee also requested an exemption 

from the requirements of the Generic 

DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 

52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The design functions of the VAS include 

prevention of the unmonitored release of 

airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or 

adjacent plant areas by providing monitoring 

of the VAS exhaust from radiologically 

controlled areas of the auxiliary building and 

annex building, and to automatically isolate 

the selected building areas and start the 

containment air filtration system (VFS) upon 

detection of high radioactivity. The proposed 

changes to the VAS to relocate and add 

radiation detectors are acceptable as they 

maintain these design functions. These 

proposed changes to the VAS design as 

described in the current licensing basis do 

not have an adverse effect on any of the 

design functions of the systems. The 

proposed changes do not affect the support, 

design, or operation of mechanical and fluid 

systems required to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident. There is no 

change to plant systems or the response of 

systems to postulated accident conditions. 

There is no change to the predicted 

radioactive releases due to postulated 

accident conditions. The plant response to 

previously evaluated accidents or external 

events is not adversely affected, nor do the 

proposed changes described create any new 

accident precursors. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes revise the VAS 

design as described in the current licensing 

basis to enable the system to perform 

required design functions, and are consistent 

with other UFSAR information. The 

proposed changes do not change the design 

requirements for the system. The relocated 

and new VAS radiation detectors are 

designed to the same equipment 

specifications, including required sensitivity 

and range, as the existing radiation detectors. 

The relocated and new VAS radiation 

detectors monitor the same parameters, as 

well as perform the same design functions, as 

the existing radiation detectors. The 

proposed changes to the system do not result 

in a new failure mechanism or introduce any 

new accident precursors. No design function 

described in the UFSAR is adversely affected 

by the proposed changes. The proposed 

changes do not result in a new failure mode, 

malfunction or sequence of events that could 

affect safety or safety-related equipment. The 

proposed changes do 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 would result 

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 changes do not change the 

codes or standards for the radiation detectors, 

or functionality of the ductwork in the 

auxiliary building and annex building. The 

proposed changes have no adverse effect on 

the nonsafety-related system design functions 

of the VAS for the prevention of the 

unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity 

to the atmosphere or adjacent plant areas by 

providing monitoring of the VAS exhaust 

from radiologically controlled areas of the 

auxiliary building and annex building, and to 

automatically isolate the selected building 

areas and start the VFS upon detection of 

high radioactivity. The proposed changes do 

not affect safety-related equipment or 

equipment whose failure could initiate an 

accident. The proposed changes to relocate 

and add radiation detectors do not adversely 

interface with safety-related equipment or 

fission product barriers. Therefore, the 

proposed changes do not affect any safetyrelated equipment, design code, function, 

design analysis, safety analysis input or 

result, or design/safety margin. No safety 

analysis or design basis acceptance limit/

criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 

requested changes, thus, no margin of safety 

is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. 

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004–2514. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7841 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: John 

McKirgan. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), 

Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

December 22, 2015. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS. under Accession 

No.ML15356A656. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would amend 

Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and 

NPF–92 for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, 

respectively. The requested amendment 

proposes to depart from approved 

AP1000 Design Control Documents 

(DCD) Tier 2 information (text, tables, 

and figures) and involved Tier 2* 

information (as incorporated into the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR) as plant specific DCD 

information), and also involves a change 

to a license condition. Specifically, the 

requested amendment proposes changes 

to the design of auxiliary building Wall 

11 and proposes other changes to the 

licensing basis for use of Seismic 

Category II structures. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect the operation of any systems or 

equipment inside or outside the auxiliary 

building that could initiate or mitigate 

abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated 

operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods, 

tornado missiles, and turbine missiles, or 

their safety or design analyses, evaluated in 

the UFSAR. The changes do not adversely 

affect any design function of the auxiliary 

building or the systems and equipment 

contained therein. The ability of the affected 

auxiliary building [Main Steam Isolation 

Valve] MSIV compartments to withstand the 

pressurization effects from the design basis 

pipe rupture is not adversely affected by the 

removal of the Wall 11 upper vent openings, 

because vents at these locations are not 

credited in the subcompartment 

pressurization analysis. MSIV compartment 

temperatures following the limiting one 

square foot pipe rupture with the vent 

openings removed remain acceptably within 

the envelope for environmental qualification 

of equipment in the compartments. The 

credit of seismic Category II Wall 11.2 as a 

[high energy line break] HELB barrier and the 

seismic Category II turbine building first bay 

and associated missile barriers to protect 

Wall 11 openings from tornado missiles 

continues to provide adequate protection of 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

required to safely shut down the plant, as 

these structures are designed to the same 

requirements as seismic Category I structures, 

and with the additional HELB loadings 

assumed, remain well within the applicable 

acceptance criteria. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve an increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not change the 

design function of the auxiliary building or 

of any of the systems or equipment in the 

auxiliary building or elsewhere within the 

Nuclear Island structure. These proposed 

changes do not introduce any new equipment 

or components that would result in a new 

failure mode, malfunction or sequence of 

events that could affect safety-related or 

nonsafety-related equipment. This activity 

will 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 would result in 

significant fuel cladding failures. 

Therefore, this activity 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 margin of safety for the design of the 

auxiliary building is maintained through 

continued use of the current codes and 

standards as stated in the UFSAR and 

adherence to the assumptions used in the 

analyses of this structure and the events 

associated with this structure. The auxiliary 

building will continue to maintain a seismic 

Category I rating which preserves the current 

structural safety margins. The 3-hour fire 

rating requirements for the impacted 

auxiliary building walls are maintained. The 

Wall 11 upper vents are not credited in the 

subcompartment pressurization analysis and 

the remaining vents and pressure relief 

devices provide sufficient venting to 

maintain the MSIV compartment pressures 

below the design limit and design basis. The 

credit of turbine building Wall 11.2 as a 

HELB barrier provides protection of Wall 11 

from selected dynamic effects, which in turn 

provides that essential SSCs remain 

protected from the effects of postulated HELB 

events. The credit of the seismic Category II 

turbine building first bay and associated 

missile barriers to provide protection of Wall 

11 openings from tornado missiles provides 

sufficient protection for the essential SSCs 

located in the auxiliary building in the 

vicinity of Wall 11 from the effects of 

external missiles. Thus, the requested 

changes will not adversely affect any safetyrelated equipment, design code, function, 

design analysis, safety analysis input or 

result, or design/safety margin. No safety 

analysis or design basis acceptance limit/

criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 

requested change, thus, no margin of safety 

is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: John 

McKirgan. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

December 15, 2015. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15351A023. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to riskinform the requirements regarding 

selected Required Action end states by 

incorporating TS Task Force (TSTF) 

traveler TSTF–423, Revision 1, 

‘‘Technical Specification End States, 

NEDC–32988–A.’’ Additionally, it 

would modify the TS Required Actions 

with a Note prohibiting the use of 

limiting condition for operation 3.0.4.a 

when entering the preferred end state 

(Mode 3) on startup. The Notice of 

Availability for TSTF–423, Revision 1, 

was published in the Federal Register 

on February 18, 2011 (76 FR 9614). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change allows a change to 

certain required end states when the TS 

Completion Times for remaining in power 

operation will be exceeded. Most of the 

requested technical specification (TS) 

changes are to permit an end state of hot 

shutdown (Mode 3) rather than an end state 

of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the 

current TS. The request was limited to: (1) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7842 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

Those end states where entry into the 

shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) 

entry is initiated by inoperability of a single 

train of equipment or a restriction on a plant 

operational parameter, unless otherwise 

stated in the applicable TS, and (3) the 

primary purpose is to correct the initiating 

condition and return to power operation as 

soon as is practical. Risk insights from both 

the qualitative and quantitative risk 

assessments were used in specific TS 

assessments. 

Such assessments are documented in 

Section 6 of topical report NEDC–32988–A, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Technical Justification to 

Support Risk Informed Modification to 

Selected Required Action End States for BWR 

Plants.’’ They provide an integrated 

discussion of deterministic and probabilistic 

issues, focusing on specific TSs, which are 

used to support the proposed TS end state 

and associated restrictions. The NRC staff 

finds that the risk insights support the 

conclusions of the specific TS assessments. 

Therefore, the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated is not significantly 

increased, if at all. The consequences of an 

accident after adopting TSTF–423 are no 

different than the consequences of an 

accident prior to adopting TSTF–423. 

Therefore, the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

affected by this change. The addition of a 

requirement to assess and manage the risk 

introduced by this change will further 

minimize possible concerns. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed). 

If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a 

change to certain required end states when 

the TS Completion Times for remaining in 

power operation are exceeded (i.e., entry into 

hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to 

repair equipment) will not introduce new 

failure modes or effects and will not, in the 

absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an 

accident whose consequences exceed the 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 

assess and manage the risk introduced by this 

change and the commitment by the licensee 

to adhere to the guidance in TSTF–IG–05–02, 

‘‘Implementation Guidance for TSTF–423, 

Revision 1, ‘Technical Specifications End 

States, NEDC–32988–A,’ ’’ will further 

minimize possible concerns. 

Thus, based on the above, this change does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from an accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change allows, for some 

systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than 

cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is 

assessed and managed. The Boiling Water 

Reactor Owners’ Group’s risk assessment 

approach is comprehensive and follows NRC 

staff guidance as documented in Regulatory 

Guides (RG) 1.174 and 1.177. In addition, the 

analyses show that the criteria of the threetiered approach for allowing TS changes are 

met. The risk impact of the proposed TS 

changes was assessed following the threetiered approach recommended in RG 1.177. 

A risk assessment was performed to justify 

the proposed TS changes. The net change to 

the margin of safety is insignificant. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Based upon the reasoning presented above, 

SNC concludes that the requested change 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, as set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), 

‘‘Issuance of Amendment.’’ 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

40 Iverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35242. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: 

November 20, 2015, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 12, 2016. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML15324A297 and 

ML16012A457, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise the 

setpoint requirements in Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.3.5, ‘‘Loss of Power 

Diesel Generator Start Instrumentation.’’ 

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 license amendment request 

changes the TS 3.3.5 requirements for loss of 

power diesel generator start instrumentation 

to enable elimination of manual actions for 

protection of safety-related equipment from 

degraded voltage conditions during design 

basis events. Elimination of these manual 

actions is required to fulfill an existing 

License Condition on each unit. 

The proposed change increases the 

Allowable Value (AV) for the 4.16 kV 

Emergency Bus Degraded Grid Voltage 

Actuation function. Installation of new, 

higher precision Degraded Voltage Relays 

(DVRs) makes possible an increase in the 

DVR actuation setpoint (encompassed by the 

AV) to a level which provides fully automatic 

protection of safety-related equipment while 

minimizing the chance of unwanted 

disconnection from the preferred offsite 

power source, which is itself an analyzed 

condition. 

Based on the above, 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 license change request 

changes the TS 3.3.5 requirements for loss of 

power diesel generator start instrumentation 

to enable elimination of manual actions for 

protection of safety-related equipment from 

degraded voltage conditions during design 

basis events. Elimination of these manual 

actions is required to fulfill an existing 

License Condition on each unit. 

The proposed changes to TS 3.3.5 do not 

change the methods of normal plant 

operation nor the methods of response to 

transient conditions, save that the range of 

automatic action provided by the DVRs is 

expanded. This change will eliminate the 

need for manual action from the degraded 

voltage protection scheme, as required by a 

License Condition for each unit, to achieve 

compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(h)(2) and 10 

CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design 

Criterion 17—Electric Power Systems. 

Accordingly, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is provided by the 

performance capability of plant equipment in 

preventing or mitigating challenges to fission 

product barriers under postulated operational 

transient and accident conditions. Since the 

proposed license amendment request 

changes the TS 3.3.5 requirements for loss of 

power diesel generator start instrumentation 

to enable elimination of manual actions for 

protection of safety-related equipment from 

degraded voltage conditions during design 

basis events, it will tend to increase the 

margin of safety by better protecting the 

safety-related plant equipment. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7843 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

40 Iverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35201. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company 

(STPNOC), Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50– 

499, South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 

and 2, Matagorda County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: June 19, 

2013, as supplemented by letters dated 

October 3, October 31, November 13, 

November 21, and December 23, 2013 

(two letters); January 9, February 13, 

February 27, March 17, March 18, May 

15, May 22, June 25, and July 15, 2014; 

and March 10, March 25, and August 

20, 2015. For the convenience of the 

reader, the ADAMS accession numbers 

of the amendment request, supplements, 

and additional documents (if publicly 

available) are provided below in a table 

in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ 

section. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) and 

licensing basis for Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80, for 

STP, Units 1 and 2, as documented in 

the Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR). The changes 

incorporate use of both a deterministic 

and a risk-informed approach to address 

safety issues discussed in Generic Safety 

Issue (GSI)–191, ‘‘Assessment of Debris 

Accumulation on PWR [PressurizedWater Reactor] Sump Performance,’’ and 

to close Generic Letter (GL) 2004–02, 

‘‘Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on 

Emergency Recirculation during Design 

Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water 

Reactors,’’ dated September 13, 2004 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML042360586), 

for STP. 

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 are a methodology 

change for assessment of debris effects that 

adds the results of a risk-informed evaluation 

to the STP licensing basis, changes to the 

[emergency core cooling system (ECCS)] and 

[containment spray system (CSS)] TS to 

extend the required completion time for 

potential [loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)] 

debris related effects and associated 

administrative TS changes. The methodology 

change concludes that the ECCS and CSS 

will have sufficient defense-in-depth and 

safety margin and will operate with high 

probability following a LOCA when 

considering the impacts and effects of debris 

accumulation on containment emergency 

sump strainers in recirculation mode, as well 

as core flow blockage due to in-vessel effects, 

following loss of coolant accidents. The 

methodology change also supports the 

changes to the TS. 

There is no significant increase in the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed changes address 

mitigation of loss of coolant accidents and 

have no effect on the probability of the 

occurrence of a loss of coolant accident. The 

proposed methodology and TS changes do 

not implement any physical changes to the 

facility or any [structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs)], and do not implement 

any changes in plant operation that could 

lead to a different kind of accident. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. The 

methodology change confirms that required 

SSCs supported by the containment sumps 

will perform their safety functions with a 

high probability, as required, and does not 

alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to perform 

their intended function to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated within the acceptance limits. The 

safety analysis acceptance criteria in the 

UFSAR continue to be met for the proposed 

methodology change. The evaluation of the 

changes determined that containment 

integrity will be maintained. The dose 

consequences were considered in the 

assessment and quantitative evaluation of the 

effects on dose using input from the riskinformed approach shows the increase in 

dose consequences is small. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of any the 

accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR. 

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 are a methodology 

change for assessment of debris effects from 

LOCAs that are already evaluated in the STP 

UFSAR, an extension of TS required 

completion time for potential LOCA debris 

related effects on ECCS and CSS, and 

associated administrative changes to the TS. 

No new or different kind accident is being 

evaluated. None of the changes install or 

remove any plant equipment, or alter the 

design, physical configuration, or mode of 

operation of any plant structure, system or 

component. The proposed changes do not 

introduce any new failure mechanisms or 

malfunctions that can initiate an accident. 

The proposed changes do not introduce 

failure modes, accident initiators, or 

equipment malfunctions that would cause a 

new or different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility for a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes are a methodology 

change for assessment of debris effects from 

LOCAs that are already evaluated in the STP 

UFSAR, an extension of TS required 

completion time for potential LOCA debris 

related effects on ECCS and CSS, and 

associated administrative changes to the TS. 

The effects from a full spectrum of LOCAs, 

including double-ended guillotine breaks for 

all piping sizes up to and including the 

largest pipe in the reactor coolant system, are 

analyzed. Appropriate redundancy and 

consideration of loss of offsite power and 

worst case single failure are retained, such 

that defense-in-depth is maintained. 

Application of the risk-informed 

methodology showed that the increase in risk 

from the contribution of debris effects is very 

small as defined by [NRC Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 1.174, ‘‘An Approach for Using 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment in RiskInformed Decisions on Plant-Specific 

Changes to the Licensing Basis’’] and that 

there is adequate defense in depth and safety 

margin. Consequently, STP determined that 

the risk-informed method demonstrates the 

containment sumps will continue to support 

the ability of safety related components to 

perform their design functions when the 

effects of debris are considered. The 

proposed change does not alter the manner 

in which safety limits are determined or 

acceptance criteria associated with a safety 

limit. The proposed change does not 

implement any changes to plant operation, 

and does not significantly affect SSCs that 

respond to safely shutdown the plant and to 

maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 

condition. The proposed change does not 

significantly affect the existing safety margins 

in the barriers for the release of radioactivity. 

There are no changes to any of the safety 

analyses in the UFSAR. 

Defense in depth and safety margin was 

extensively evaluated for the methodology 

change and the associated TS changes. The 

evaluation determined that there is 

substantial defense in depth and safety 

margin that provide a high level of 

confidence that the calculated risk for the 

methodology and TS changes is conservative 

and that the actual risk is likely much lower. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the standards of 

10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, 

the NRC staff proposes to determine that 

the request for amendments involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Availability of Documents 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for license 

amendment dated June 19, 2013, listed 

below in the table, in addition to 

supplements, requests for additional 

information responses, and other 

relevant documents. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7844 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

Title Date ADAMS Accession No. 

SECY–12–0093, ‘‘Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue–191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation 

on Pressurized-Water Reactor Sump Performance.’’ 

07/09/2012 ML121320270 

STP Pilot Submittal and Request for Exemption for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolve Generic 

Safety Issue (GSI)–191.

01/31/2013 ML13043A013 

NRC Letter to STPNOC, ‘‘South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2—Supplemental Information Needed for 

Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Request for Exemption for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolve Generic Safety Issue 191’’.

04/01/2013 ML13066A519 

Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191.06/19/2013 ML131750250 

(package) 

NRC Letter to STPNOC, ‘‘South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2—Acceptance of Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment Request for Approval of a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolve Generic Safety Issue GSI–191’’.08/13/2013 ML13214A031 

Corrections to Information Provided in Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and 

License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191.

10/03/2013 ML13295A222 

Submittal of GSI–191 Chemical Effects Test Reports .............................................................................. 10/31/2013 ML13323A673 

(package) 

Supplement 1 to Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment 

for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191.

11/13/2013 ML13323A128 

(package) 

Supplement 1 to Revised STP Pilot Submittal for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic 

Safety Issue (GSI)–191 to Supersede and Replace the Revised Pilot Submittal.

11/21/2013 ML13338A165 

Response to STP–GSI–191–EMCB–RAI–1 .............................................................................................. 12/23/2013 ML14015A312 

Response to NRC Request for Reference Document for STP Risk-Informed GSI–191 Application ....... 12/23/2013 ML14015A311 

Response to Request for Additional Information re Use of RELAP5 in Analyses for Risk-Informed 

GSI–191 Licensing Application.

01/09/2014 ML14029A533 

Submittal of CASA Grande Code and Analyses for STP’s Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application.02/13/2014 ML14052A110 

(package, portions redacted) 

Submittal of GSI–191 Chemical Effects Test Reports .............................................................................. 02/27/2014 ML14072A075 

(package) 

Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI–191 Application.03/17/2014 ML14086A383 

(package) 

Submittal of CASA Grande Source Code for STP’s Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application ....... 03/18/2014 (proprietary, 

non-public) 

Second Submittal of CASA Grande Source Code for STP’s Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application.05/15/2014 ML14149A354 

First Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSl–191 Licensing Application—Revised.05/22/2014 ML14149A439 

(package) 

Second Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application.06/25/2014 ML14178A467 (package) 

Third Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application.07/15/2014 ML14202A045 

Submittal of Updated CASA Grande Input for STP’s Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application ..... 03/10/2015 ML15072A092 

Description of Revised Risk-Informed Methodology and Responses to Round 2 Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application.03/25/2015 ML15091A440 

Supplement 2 to STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a 

Risk-Informed Approach to Address Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191 and Respond to Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02.

08/20/2015 ML15246A125 

Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz, 

Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), 

Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: 

December 15, 2015. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15362A023. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specifications (TSs) 3.4.17, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Tube Integrity’’; 5.7.2.12, 

‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Program’’; and 

5.9.9, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube Inspection 

Report,’’ to exclude portions of the SG 

tubes below the top of the tube sheet 

from needing to be plugged. 

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 

consequence of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Allowing the use of an alternate repair 

criteria as proposed in this amendment 

request does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequence of 

an accident previously evaluated. 

The presence of the tubesheet enhances the 

tube integrity in the region of the hardroll by 

precluding tube deformation beyond its 

initial expanded outside diameter. The 

resistance to both tube rupture and tube 

collapse is strengthened by the presence of 

the tubesheet in that region. Hardrolling of 

the tube into the tubesheet results in an 

interference fit between the tube and the 

tubesheet. Tube rupture cannot occur 

because the contact between the tube and 

tubesheet does not permit sufficient 

movement of tube material. In a similar 

manner, the tubesheet does not permit 

sufficient movement of tube material to 

permit buckling collapse of the tube during 

postulated loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) 

loadings. 

The type of degradation for which the F* 

[the length of mechanical expansion required 

to prevent pullout for all normal operating 

and postulated accident conditions] has been 

developed (cracking with a circumferential 

orientation) can theoretically lead to a 

postulated tube rupture event, provided that 

the postulated through-wall circumferential 

crack exists near the top of the tubesheet. An 

evaluation including analysis and testing has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7845 

been performed to determine the resistive 

strength of roll expanded tubes within the 

tubesheet. That evaluation provides the basis 

for the acceptance criteria for tube 

degradation subject to the F* criterion. 

The F* length of roll expansion is 

sufficient to preclude tube pullout from tube 

degradation located below the F* distance, 

regardless of the extent of the tube 

degradation. The existing technical 

specification leakage rate requirements and 

accident analysis assumptions remain 

unchanged in the unlikely event that 

significant leakage from this region does 

occur. As noted above, tube rupture and 

pullout are not expected for tubes using the 

ARC [alternative repair criterion]. Any 

leakage out of the tube from within the 

tubesheet at any elevation in the tubesheet is 

fully bounded by the existing Main Steam 

Line Break (MSLB) analysis included in the 

WBN Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report 

(FSAR). 

Therefore, the proposed ARC does not 

adversely impact any other previously 

evaluated design basis accident. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Implementation of the proposed ARC does 

not introduce any significant changes to the 

plant design basis. Use of the criterion does 

not provide a mechanism to result in an 

accident initiated outside of the region of the 

tubesheet expansion. A hypothetical accident 

as a result of any tube degradation in the 

expanded portion of the tube would be 

bounded by the existing tube rupture 

accident analysis. Tube bundle structural 

integrity and leak tightness are expected to be 

maintained. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The use of the ARC has been demonstrated 

to maintain the integrity of the tube bundle 

commensurate with the requirements of 

Regulatory Guide 1.121, ‘‘Bases for Plugging 

Degraded PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] 

Steam Generator Tubes,’’ for indications in 

the free span of tubes and the primary to 

secondary pressure boundary under normal 

and postulated accident conditions. 

Acceptable tube degradation for the F* 

criterion is any degradation indication in the 

tubesheet region, more than the F* distance 

below either the bottom of the transition 

between the roll expansion and the 

unexpanded tube, or the top of the tubesheet, 

whichever is lower. The safety factors used 

in the verification of the strength of the 

degraded tube are consistent with the safety 

factors in the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code used in SG design. The 

F* distance has been verified by testing to be 

greater than the length of roll expansion 

required to preclude both tube pullout and 

significant leakage during normal and 

postulated accident conditions. Resistance to 

tube pullout is based upon the primary to 

secondary pressure differential as it acts on 

the surface area of the tube, which includes 

the tube wall cross-section, in addition to the 

inside diameter-based area of the tube. The 

leak testing acceptance criteria are based on 

the primary to secondary leakage limit in the 

technical specifications and the leakage 

assumptions used in the UFSAR [Updated 

FSAR] accident analyses. Implementation of 

the ARC will decrease the number of tubes 

which must be taken out of service with tube 

plugs. Plugs reduce the RCS flow margin; 

thus, implementation of the ARC will 

maintain the margin of flow that would 

otherwise be reduced in the event of 

increased plugging. 

Based on the above, it is concluded that the 

proposed change does not result in a 

significant reduction in or a loss of margin 

with respect to plant safety as defined in the 

FSAR or the bases of the WBN Unit 2 

technical specifications. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ralph E. 

Rodgers, General Counsel, Tennessee 

Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill 

Dr., 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 

37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

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 (AEA), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Docket Nos. 50–336 and 50–423, 

Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 

(MPS2) and Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New 

London County, Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: January 

15, 2015, as supplemented by letters 

dated April 15, July 16, July 30, 

November 2, and December 1, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the MPS2 and 

MPS3 Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

adopt NRC-approved Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 

Change Traveler TSTF–523, Revision 2, 

‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas 

Accumulation.’’ 

Date of issuance: January 29, 2016. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 325 and 267. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML16011A400; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–65 and NPF–49: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Operating License 

and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43126). 

The supplemental letter dated April 15, 

2015, was published with the January 

15, 2015, application, in the initial FR 

notice. The supplemental letters dated 

July 16, July 30, November 2, and 

December 1, 2015, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7846 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 

2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: February 

2, 2015, as supplemented by letters 

dated August 11, 2015, and October 20, 

2015. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified the technical 

specifications (TSs) to allow for brief, 

inadvertent, simultaneous opening of 

redundant secondary containment 

personnel access doors during normal 

entry and exit conditions. 

Date of issuance: January 28, 2016. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 220 and 182. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML15356A140; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–39 and NPF–85: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 14, 2015 (80 FR 20022). 

The supplemental letters dated August 

11, 2015, and October 20, 2015, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 

2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: Yes. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: February 

23, 2015, as supplemented by letters 

dated August 12, 2015, and October 20, 

2015. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified the technical 

specifications (TSs) to allow for brief, 

inadvertent, simultaneous opening of 

redundant secondary containment 

personnel access doors during normal 

entry and exit conditions. 

Date of issuance: February 1, 2016. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendments Nos.: 303 and 307. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML15350A179; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 14, 2015 (80 FR 20023). 

The supplemental letters dated August 

12, 2015, and October 20, 2015, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 1, 

2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: Yes. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: January 

15, 2015, as supplemented by letters 

dated May 4, 2015, June 9, 2015, and 

January 12, 2016. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the technical 

specifications (TSs) to add a limiting 

condition for operation, applicability, 

required actions, completion times, and 

surveillance requirements for the 

residual heat removal containment 

spray and associated interlock 

permissive instrumentation. A new TS 

Section 3.6.1.9, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal 

(RHR) Containment Spray,’’ has been 

added to reflect the reliance on 

containment spray to maintain the 

drywell within design temperature 

limits during a small steam line break. 

In addition, the ‘‘Drywell Pressure— 

High’’ function that serves as an 

interlock permissive to allow RHR 

containment spray mode alignment has 

been relocated from the Technical 

Requirements Manual to TS 3.3.5.1, 

‘‘Emergency Core Cooling System 

(ECCS) Instrumentation.’’ 

Date of issuance: January 22, 2016. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 253. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15343A301; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–46: The amendment revised 

the Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 

13910). The supplemental letters dated 

May 4, 2015, June 9, 2015, and January 

12, 2016, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 22, 

2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

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: 

November 26, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 3, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments are to Combined License 

Nos. NPF–93 and NPF–94 for VCSNS, 

Units 2 and 3. The amendments 

authorized changes to the VCSNS, Units 

2 and 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report to revise the details of the 

effective thermal conductivity resulting 

from the oxidation of the inorganic zinc 

component of the containment vessel 

coating system. 

Date of issuance: October 9, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 34. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. 

ML15272A417; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

93 and NPF–94: Amendments revised 

the Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR 

9490). The supplemental letter dated 

June 3, 2015, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7847 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 9, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket No. 50– 

321, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 

(HNP), Unit No. 1, Appling County, 

Georgia 

Date of application for amendment: 

September 1, 2015. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specification value of the Safety Limit 

Minimum Critical Power Ratio to 

support operation in the next fuel cycle. 

Date of issuance: January 29, 2016. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to reactor startup following the 

HNP, Unit 1, spring 2016, refueling 

outage. 

Amendment No.: 275. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15342A398; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–57: Amendment revised the 

license and the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 3, 2015 (80 FR 

67802). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 

2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 29, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Cyber Security 

Plan Implementation Milestone 8 

completion date and the physical 

protection license condition. 

Date of issuance: January 28, 2016. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 214. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15328A059; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–30: The amendment revised 

the Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38778). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 

2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day 

of February 2016. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Anne T. Boland, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02916 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting; March 9, 2016 

Public Hearing 

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, 

March 9, 2016 

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, 

Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 

York Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 

STATUS: Hearing OPEN to the Public at 

2:00 p.m. 

PURPOSE: Public Hearing in conjunction 

with each meeting of OPIC’s Board of 

Directors, to afford an opportunity for 

any person to present views regarding 

the activities of the Corporation. 

PROCEDURES: Individuals wishing to 

address the hearing orally must provide 

advance notice to OPIC’s Corporate 

Secretary no later than 5 p.m. 

Wednesday, March 2, 2016. The notice 

must include the individual’s name, 

title, organization, address, and 

telephone number, and a concise 

summary of the subject matter to be 

presented. 

Oral presentations may not exceed ten 

(10) minutes. The time for individual 

presentations may be reduced 

proportionately, if necessary, to afford 

all participants who have submitted a 

timely request an opportunity to be 

heard. 

Participants wishing to submit a 

written statement for the record must 

submit a copy of such statement to 

OPIC’s Corporate Secretary no later than 

5 p.m. Wednesday, March 2, 2016. Such 

statement must be typewritten, double 

spaced, and may not exceed twenty-five 

(25) pages. 

Upon receipt of the required notice, 

OPIC will prepare an agenda, which 

will be available at the hearing, that 

identifies speakers, the subject on which 

each participant will speak, and the 

time allotted for each presentation. 

A written summary of the hearing will 

be compiled, and such summary will be 

made available, upon written request to 

OPIC’s Corporate Secretary, at the cost 

of reproduction. 

Written summaries of the projects to 

be presented at the March 17, 2016 

Board meeting will be posted on OPIC’s 

Web site. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: 

Information on the hearing may be 

obtained from Catherine F.I. Andrade at 

(202) 336–8768, via facsimile at (202) 

408–0297, or via email at 

Catherine.Andrade@opic.gov. 

Dated: February 11, 2016. 

Catherine F.I. Andrade, 

OPIC Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03184 Filed 2–11–16; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3210–01–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Notice of Submission for Approval: 

Information Collection 3206–0266; 

Privacy Act Request for Completed 

Standard Form SF85/SF85P/SF86, INV 

100A 

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Federal Investigative Services 

(FIS), U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is notifying the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies that OPM is seeking Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for renewal of information 

collection control number 3206–0266, 

Privacy Act Request for Completed 

Standard Form SF85/SF85P/SF86, INV 

100A. OPM is soliciting comments for 

this collection as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. 

L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35), as 

amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act 

(Pub. L. 104–106). The Office of 

Management and Budget is particularly 

interested in comments that: 

1. Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the information 

will have practical utility; 

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and assumptions 

used; 

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to respond, 

including through the use of appropriate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES