[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 257-272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33260]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0288]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from December 8, 2015, to December 21, 2015. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 22, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by February 4, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed March 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0288. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected].
     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: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0288 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0288.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 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-2015-0288, 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 Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, (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

[[Page 258]]

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/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated 
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or 
an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to 
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, 
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by March 
7, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing 
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of 
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave 
to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec.  
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing 
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its 
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not 
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion 
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance 
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a 
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on 
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A 
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any 
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be 
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited 
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by 
March 7, 2016.

[[Page 259]]

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require 
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a 
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications,

[[Page 260]]

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.

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: September 24, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15268A149.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify 
technical specification requirements to address Generic Letter 2008-01, 
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' as described in TSTF-523, 
Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
    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 revises or adds Surveillance Requirement(s) 
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the 
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System are not rendered 
inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which 
permit performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in 
the subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure 
that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their 
assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas 
accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the RCIC System are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, 
the proposed change does not impose any new or different 
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the RCIC System are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The 
proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in 
order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their 
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive 
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the 
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability 
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there 
are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety 
limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely 
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.

Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: October 29, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15302A542.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
several HNP, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow the `A' 
Emergency Service Water (ESW) pump to be inoperable for 14 days to 
allow for the replacement of the `A' Train ESW pump. The proposed 
license amendment request (LAR) would be applicable on a one-time 
basis.
    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?
    The `B' Train ESW supply and supported equipment will remain 
fully operable during the 14 day completion time. The `A' ESW pump 
and supported equipment function as accident mitigators. Removing 
the `A' Train ESW pump from service for a limited period of time 
does not affect any accident initiator and therefore cannot change 
the probability of an accident. The proposed changes and the `A' 
Train ESW pump replacement activity have been evaluated to assess 
their impact on the systems affected and upon the design basis 
safety functions.
    The activities covered by this LAR also include defense-in-depth 
actions. Weather patterns will be monitored and this activity 
schedule will be adjusted if tornado/high wind conditions become 
imminent.
    In addition, completing the lineups required by the operations 
work procedure (OWP) for the Service Water (SW) system, OWP-SW, 
``Service Water,'' which is necessary when an ESW pump is 
inoperable, provides defense in depth for prevention of core damage 
and containment failure. The lineup steps for time periods when the 
`A' ESW pump is inoperable include the lifting of leads to disable 
the Safety Injection (SI) close signal to service water valve `1SW-
39' and service water valve `SW-276.' This allows the breakers to be 
maintained on and allows expeditious isolation capability in the 
event of a SW leak in the Reactor Auxiliary Building. This lineup 
also defeats the SI signal to service water valve `SW-276' to 
maintain it open. As long as service water valves `1SW-274' and 
`1SW-40' are operable, the `B' Train ESW header is isolable, and 
operable. The simplified flow diagrams provided in Attachment 5 
(enclosed in original document) illustrate the flow paths affected 
by the valves discussed above. Quantitative measures and qualitative 
measures will be taken during the planned ESW pump replacement, 
which are identified in Attachment 7 (enclosed in original document) 
as Regulatory Commitments.
    There will be no effect on the analysis of any accident or the 
progression of the accident since the operable ESW `B' train is 
capable of serving 100 percent of all the required heat loads. As 
such, there is no impact on consequence mitigation for any transient 
or accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of

[[Page 261]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the required 
completion times from 72 hours for the Charging Pumps, Emergency 
Core Cooling Systems Subsystems, Containment Spray System, Spray 
Additive System, Containment Cooling System, Auxiliary Feedwater 
System, Component Cooling Water System, ESW System, Essential 
Services Chilled Water System, and AC [Alternating Current] Sources 
systems to 336 hours. Additionally, proposed amendment is a one-time 
extension of the required completion times from 7 days for the 
Control Room Emergency Filtration System and the Reactor Auxiliary 
Building Emergency Exhaust Systems to 336 hours. The requested 
change does not involve the addition or removal of any plant system, 
structure, or component.
    The proposed temporary TS changes do not affect the basic 
design, operation, or function of any of the systems associated with 
the TS impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed 
amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from that previously evaluated.
    HNP intends to isolate and replace the `A' ESW pump. During the 
period in which the `A' Train ESW pump is not available, the (NSW 
System will remain available to supply the `A' Train ESW loads and 
the `B' Train ESW Train will be operable.
    Throughout the pump replacement project, compensatory measures 
will be in place to provide additional assurance that the affected 
systems will continue to be capable of performing their intended 
safety functions.
    In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant 
systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety 
analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include 
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment 
system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant, and 
containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.
    Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change 
in the operation of the plant. The activity only extends the amount 
of time the `A' Train ESW system is allowed to be inoperable for the 
replacement of the `A' ESW pump to improve design margin.
    The estimated incremental conditional core damage probability 
(ICCDP) during the 14 day completion time extension is much less 
than the limits presented in Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, it 
is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: November 5, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15310A064.
    Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the 
Calvert Cliffs Technical Specifications (TSs) to relocate certain 
Surveillance Requirements Frequencies to the previously approved 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions 
provided in [brackets]:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative 
change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies 
for periodic Surveillance Requirements [SRs] to licensee control 
under the SFCP. Surveillance Frequencies (SF) are not an initiator 
to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability 
of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. 
The systems and components required by the TS for which the SF are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the SR, and be capable of performing any mitigation 
function assumed in the accident analysis. 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 amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative 
change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies 
for periodic SR to licensee control under the SFCP. No new or 
different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The 
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 
change does not impose any new or different requirements. The change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed 
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative 
change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies 
for periodic SR to licensee control under the SFCP. The design, 
operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, 
structures, and components, specified in applicable codes and 
standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will 
continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis 
(including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS), since 
these are not affected by [relocating] the SF[s]. Similarly, there 
is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in 
the plant licensing basis.
    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 
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2015. This Notice is regarding 
the application dated May 12, 2015, which superseded the application 
dated March 26, 2015, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15089A231 and ML15089A233. 
A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. 
ML15134A232.
    Description of amendment request: The NRC staff has previously made 
a proposed determination that the amendment request dated March 26, 
2015, involves no significant hazards

[[Page 262]]

consideration (80 FR 58518; September 29, 2015). Subsequently, by 
application dated May 12, 2015, the licensee superseded the March 26, 
2015, amendment request in its entirety. Accordingly, this Notice of 
the May 12, 2015, application supersedes the previous Notice in its 
entirety.
    This amendment request involves the adoption of approved changes to 
NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications [STS] General Electric 
BWR/4 Plants,'' Revision 4.0, to allow relocation of specific Technical 
Specifications (TS) surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled 
program. The proposed changes are described in Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 425 ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 
Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b,'' Revision 
3 (TSTF-425) ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642, and are described in the 
Notice of Availability published in the FR on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 
31996). The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-425. 
The proposed changes relocate surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). 
The changes are applicable to licensees using probabilistic risk 
guidelines contained in NRC-approved NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) 04-
10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-
Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML071360456).
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
changes. The changes do 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 LAR changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), 
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Exelon 
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance 
contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the 
TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable 
acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase 
of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with 
Regulatory Guide 1.177.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: October 8, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15281A028.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would allow the 
proposed changes to Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 (NMP1) and Nine Mile Point, 
Unit 2 (NMP2) TSs to provide an allowance for brief, inadvertent, 
simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment personnel 
access doors during normal entry and exit conditions. Specifically, 
NMP1 Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.3 and Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 4.4.3 are modified to acknowledge that secondary 
containment access openings may be open for entry and exit. Further, 
the definition for Reactor Building Integrity, specified in NMP1 TS 
Definition 1.12, is revised for consistency to reflect the changes 
proposed to TS Section 3.4.3 LCO and SR 4.4.3. The NMP2 SR 3.6.4.1.3 is 
modified to acknowledge that secondary containment access openings may 
be open for entry and exit.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes address temporary conditions during which 
the secondary containment SRs are not met. The secondary containment 
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a 
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
while using the proposed changes are not impacted and are bounded by 
the existing design bases calculations and analyses. As a result, 
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 263]]

    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would provide an allowance for brief, 
inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment 
personnel access doors during normal entry and exit conditions. The 
allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment access 
door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect 
the safety function of secondary containment as the doors are 
promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary 
containment boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous 
opening and closing of redundant secondary containment personnel 
access doors during entry and exit conditions does not affect the 
ability of the Emergency Ventilation System (NMP1) or the Standby 
Gas Treatment (SGT) System (NMP2) to establish the required 
secondary containment vacuum.

    Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not 
affected.
    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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

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: December 15, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15349A800.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
reduce the reactor steam dome pressure stated in the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. The proposed 
change addresses a 10 CFR part 21 issue concerning the potential to 
violate the safety limits during a pressure regulator failure maximum 
demand (open) (PRFO) transient.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the reactor steam dome pressure in 
Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the 
use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits 
that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The 
proposed change is in accordance with an NRC approved critical power 
correlation methodology, and as such, maintains required safety 
margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which 
the plant is operated and maintained.
    The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their 
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating 
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does 
not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it 
require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed 
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
resultant consequences.
    Lowering the value of reactor steam dome pressure in the TS has 
no physical effect on plant equipment and therefore, no impact on 
the course of plant transients. The change is an analytical exercise 
to demonstrate the applicability of correlations and methodologies. 
There are no known operational or safety benefits.
    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 reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit 
from 785 psig [pounds per square inch gauge] to 685 psig is a change 
based upon previously approved documents and does not involve 
changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a 
result, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no 
hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which 
any plant systems perform a safety function. No new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of the proposed change.
    The proposed change does not introduce any new accident 
precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or 
changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. Also, the 
change does not impose any new or different requirements or 
eliminate any existing requirements. The 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 accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, and through the 
parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of 
equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis 
accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition by General 
Electric determined that since the Minimum Critical Power Ratio 
improves during the PRFO transient, there is no decrease in the 
safety margin and therefore there is no threat to fuel cladding 
integrity. The proposed change in reactor steam dome pressure 
supports the current safety margin, which protects the fuel cladding 
integrity during a depressurization transient, but does not change 
the requirements governing operation or availability of safety 
equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. The 
change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment, which remains 
unchanged.
    The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 
2.1.1.2 is consistent with and within the capabilities of the 
applicable NRC approved critical power correlation for the fuel 
designs in use at PBAPS Units 2 and 3. No setpoints at which 
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change. 
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety 
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design 
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus, 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed 
change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 5, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML15254A387 and ML15309A750, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications to support planned plant modifications to 
implement chiller replacements and for performing maintenance on common 
line components.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination:

[[Page 264]]

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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Auxiliary Building Chilled Water (AB CH) system will 
continue to meet the design cooling requirements for both normal and 
accident conditions. The Two chiller and Cross Tied configuration 
analyses verify the capability of the system to perform its design 
function. The configuration analyses were performed assuming that 
one of the required chillers is out of service for the supplying 
unit to account for a possible failure of a chiller, demonstrating 
that only the remaining required chillers are required to be 
operating for normal operation and accident conditions. This 
supports operating with the required chillers available and the 
potential loss of a chiller during an accident as the single 
failure, or the unexpected loss of a chiller during normal 
operation.
    The AB CH system is not an initiator or precursor to any 
anticipated (or abnormal) operational transients or postulated 
design basis accidents. Operating with only two chillers required 
does not alter the design requirements of the system; the required 
cooling capability is still met. The AB CH systems for Salem Unit 1 
and Unit 2 are designed to allow the systems to be cross-tied; 
allowing for the pumps and chillers of one Unit to cool the heat 
loads of both Units. In cross-tie configuration the analyses 
demonstrate the system will continue to provide required cooling 
capability to the control room and safety related areas during 
normal operation and in the event of an accident.
    Therefore there is no increase in the probability of any 
previously evaluated accident.
    Two Chiller or Cross-Tied operation has no effect on the 
consequences of any previously analyzed accident. Evaluations were 
performed assuming that one of the required chillers is out of 
service to account for a possible failure of a chiller. The two 
chiller analyses determined that certain heat loads are required to 
be isolated, certain environmental conditions are required, and that 
single filtration alignment of the CREACS [Control Room Emergency 
Air Conditioning System] must be restricted. The cross-tied analyses 
determined that certain heat loads are required to be isolated, 
certain environmental conditions are required, and both trains of 
the CREACS must be in service. The proposed TS changes incorporate 
these restrictions ensuring the design requirements of the system 
will continue to be met. The temperatures of the Control Area Rooms 
continue to be below the acceptance criteria during AB CH system Two 
Chiller and Cross-Tied operations for both normal operation and 
accident conditions.
    Therefore this proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TS permitting AB CH system Two 
Chiller and Cross-Tied operation do not introduce any new accident 
initiators or create any new failure mechanisms or malfunctions. The 
analyses demonstrate the system continues to perform its design 
functions for both normal and accident conditions. To ensure the 
system has adequate cooling capability, restrictions are placed in 
TS isolating non-safety related loads, verifying certain 
environmental conditions, and restricting single filtration train 
alignment operation. These restrictions do not cause the system to 
be operated outside its design basis and therefore do not create any 
new failure mechanisms.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not alter setpoints or limits 
established or assumed by any accident analyses. The proposed change 
does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit (i.e., 
Control Room Area temperatures remain below design requirements), 
therefore it does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. In 
Two Chiller and Cross-Tied configuration, restrictions are placed in 
the TS ensuring the AB CH system will continue to provide adequate 
cooling during normal and accident conditions. The Control Room area 
ambient air temperature will not exceed the allowable temperature 
for continuous duty rating for the equipment and instrumentation and 
the control room will remain habitable for operations personnel 
during and following all credible accident conditions.
    The sharing of the AB CH system between Units in the Cross-Tied 
configuration does not impair its ability to perform its safety 
function for both normal and accident conditions. Design cooling 
requirements for the accident condition unit continue to be met, and 
the operating unit cooling requirements are also met such that there 
can be an orderly shutdown and cool down.
    Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: October 12, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15285A014.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.6.2.3, ``Containment Cooling System,'' to correct 
a discrepancy between TS mode applicability and the shutdown mode in 
the associated action statements. The request also proposes changes to 
the Unit Nos. 1 and 2, TS 3.7.1.1, ``Safety Valves,'' to correct 
discrepancies between TS mode applicability and action statement 
shutdown modes.
    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.
    Neither the Containment Fan Cooling Units (CFCUs) nor the MSSVs 
[main steam line code safety valves] are accident initiators. These 
proposed changes will not increase the probability of occurrence of 
any design basis accident since the corrections to the affected 
Technical Specifications, in and of themselves, cannot initiate an 
accident. Should a previously evaluated accident occur, the proposed 
changes will ensure that the plant equipment is operable in all 
required applicable modes of operation and that the Technical 
Specification action statements are consistent with those applicable 
modes. There will be no impact on the source term or pathways 
assumed in accidents previously evaluated. No design functions of 
structures, systems and components required to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident are affected. Therefore, the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve physical changes 
(installing new equipment or modifying existing equipment) related 
to the design functions or operations of the CFCUs or MSSVs. In 
addition, the proposed changes to the affected Technical

[[Page 265]]

Specification applicability modes and action statement modes will 
not create the potential for any new initiating events or transients 
to occur in the physical plant.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes, which correct a non-conservative TS and 
eliminate an inconsistency between applicability mode and action 
statement, do not exceed or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety 
limit.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, 
South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 30, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15273A115.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved, 
would depart from certain plant-specific Tier 1 information by adding 
two turbine building sump pumps to accommodate the increased flow that 
will be experienced during condensate polishing system rinsing 
operations. The proposed change also indicates that there is more than 
one main turbine building sump. Because flow into the turbine building 
sumps may be radiologically contaminated, the turbine building sump 
pumps will cease operation if a high radiation signal is present. The 
proposed changes to Tier 1 would have corresponding changes to the 
Combined License (COL) Appendix C, however there are no associated Tier 
2 changes required.
    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 to identify that there is more than one 
turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps 
(WWS-MP-07A and B) to [combined license] COL Appendix C, Section 
2.3.29, and corresponding Table 2.3.29-1 will provide consistency 
within the current licensing basis. The main turbine building sumps 
and sump pumps are not safety-related components and do not 
interface with any systems, structures, or components (SSC) accident 
initiator or initiating sequence of events; thus, the probability of 
accidents evaluated within the plant-specific [Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not 
involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to 
accident conditions, thus the consequences of accidents evaluated in 
the UFSAR are not affected.
    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 to identify that there is more than one 
turbine building sump and to add two turbine sump pumps to the non-
safety waste water system (WWS) do not affect any safety-related 
equipment, nor does it add any new interface to safety-related SSCs. 
No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected 
by this change. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, 
malfunction, or sequence of events that could affect safety or 
safety-related equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The WWS is a non-safety-related system that does not interface 
with any safety-related equipment. The proposed changes to identify 
that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two 
turbine building sump pumps do not affect any 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 proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units (BFN) 1, 2, and 3, Limestone 
County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: September 16, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML15260B125).
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Units 1 and 2, by adding a new 
Specification (i.e., TS 3.3.8.3) to consolidate the requirements 
governing the safety functions for the Emergency Core Cooling System 
(ECCS) Preferred Pump Logic, Common Accident Signal (CAS) Logic, and 
the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic and for Unit 3, by adding a new 
Specification (i.e., TS 3.3.8.3) to consolidate the requirements 
governing the safety functions for the CAS Logic, and the Unit Priority 
Re-Trip Logic for consistency with the changes to the, Units 1 and 2 
TSs. The proposed change would relocate the existing requirements for 
the CAS Logic from Units 1, 2, and 3, TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--
Operating,'' to the proposed TS 3.3.8.3. In addition, TS 3.3.5.1, Table 
3.3.5.1-1, ``Emergency Core Cooling System Instrumentation,'' would be 
revised to incorporate references to the proposed TS 3.3.8.3.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements 
currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for 
the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common 
Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. 
Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 
continues to provide LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation], 
Required Actions and Completion Times, and Surveillance Requirements 
for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common 
Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. A TVA 
risk assessment has determined that the risk of changing the 
Completion Time for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic from 24 hours to 
seven days, and maintaining the current

[[Page 266]]

Surveillance Test Intervals as the current Surveillance Test 
Interval for the rest of the ECCS Instrumentation in the technical 
specifications is acceptable. Because the proposed changes do not 
require modification of the plant or change the way the logic 
systems are used, the proposed changes do not affect the current 
LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] analysis of record.
    Based on the above discussions, the proposed changes do not 
involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements 
currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for 
the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common 
Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. 
Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 
continues to provide LCO, Required Actions and Completion Times, and 
Surveillance Requirements for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 
1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority 
Re-Trip Logic. The proposed changes result in no physical change to 
the plant configuration or method of operation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements 
currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for 
the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common 
Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. 
Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3 
continues to provide LCO, Required Actions and Completion Times, and 
Surveillance Requirements for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 
1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority 
Re-Trip Logic. A TVA risk assessment has determined that the risk of 
changing the Completion Time for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic from 
24 hours to seven days, and maintaining the current Surveillance 
Test Intervals as the current Surveillance Test Interval for the 
rest of the ECCS Instrumentation in the technical specifications is 
acceptable.
    Accordingly, the proposed changes do 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

III. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 30, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 8, and July 30, 2015. Publicly-available versions are 
in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14364A100, ML15128A305, and 
ML15215A336, respectively.
    Brief description of amendment request: The NRC is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and 
DPR-25, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), for 
operation of DNPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed amendment uses a new 
Criticality Safety Analysis (CSA) methodology for performing the 
criticality safety evaluation for legacy fuel types in addition to the 
new ATRIUM 10XM fuel design in the DNPS spent fuel pools. In addition, 
the licensee's amendment request proposes a change to the DNPS 
Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Criticality,'' in support of the 
new CSA.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68573).
    Expiration date of individual notice: December 7, 2015 (public 
comments); January 5, 2015 (hearing requests).

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc. and Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 
Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: May 7, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and 5.6.2.3 by changing the title 
of the position with overall responsibility for the safe handling and 
storage of nuclear fuel and licensee initiated changes to the Offsite 
Dose Calculation Manual from either the Plant Manager or the 
Decommissioning Director to the General Manager Decommissioning.

[[Page 267]]

    Date of issuance: November 27, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be 
implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15261A452; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR 
43127).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of application for amendment: December 15, 2014 as 
supplemented by letters dated May 6, October 12, November 6, and 
November 24, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.3.1 of TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SBT) 
System''; SR 3.7.3.1 of TS 3.7.3 ``Control Room Fresh Air (CRFA) 
System''; and TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).'' 
The changes to SRs 3.6.4.3.1 and 3.7.3.1 are consistent with the 
adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard 
Technical Specification (STS) Traveler TSTF-522, ``Revise Ventilation 
System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month.'' 
Additionally, the change to TS 5.5.7 provided consistency with the 
above TS changes that was not addressed in TSTF-522.
    Date of issuance: December 17, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 208. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15336A256; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR 
23603). The supplemental letters dated May 6, October 12, November 6, 
and November 24, 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 Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY), 
Vernon, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: June 12, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 21, 2014; February 5, 2015; June 18, 2015; and 
July 16, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
permanently defueled emergency plan and emergency action level (EAL) 
scheme to reflect the reduced scope of offsite and onsite emergency 
planning and the significantly reduced spectrum of credible accidents 
that can occur for the permanently defueled condition.
    Date of issuance: December 11, 2015.
    Effective date: As of April 15, 2016, and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of the amendment effective date.
    Amendment No.: 264. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15233A166; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment 
revised the VY permanently defueled emergency plan and EAL scheme.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 9, 2014 (79 FR 
73109). The supplemental letters dated October 21, 2014; February 5, 
2015; June 18, 2015; and July 16, 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 this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The 
Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2015, provides the discussion of 
the comments received from the State of Vermont and the public.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 
2, Ogle County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2014, as 
supplemented by letters dated June 25, and September 16, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The changes increase the voltage 
limit for the diesel generator full load rejection test specified by 
technical specification (TS) and surveillance requirement (SR) 
3.8.1.10. Additionally, the proposed amendment adds Note 3 to TS SR 
3.8.1.10 that allows for full load reject testing.
    Date of issuance: December 17, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No(s).: 187/187, and 194/194. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15293A589. Documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos.NPF-72 and NPF-77 and Renewed 
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66: The amendments 
revise the TSs and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 
13907). The June 25, and September 16, 2015, supplements contained 
clarifying information and did not change the scope of the proposed 
action or affect the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no 
significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: November 17, 2014, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 21, June 24, and November 16, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.2, ``Primary Coolant Sources Outside 
Containment,'' The approved change requires integrated leak testing to 
be performed at least once per 24 months and adds a provision to apply 
surveillance

[[Page 268]]

requirement 3.0.2 to TS 5.5.2 requirements.
    Date of issuance: December 18, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No: 208. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15251A584; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 17, 2015 (80 
FR 8361). The April 21, 2015 supplement, contained clarifying 
information, which changed the NRC staff's initial proposed finding 
that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, 
therefore the notice was later supplemented on May 12, 2015 (80 FR 
27197). The June 24, and November 16, 2015 supplements did not affect 
the revised no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. 
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: April 24, 2014, as supplemented 
by letters dated April 30, 2015, and October 9, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments add new low degraded 
voltage relays and timers, with appropriate settings, on each 
engineered safety features bus. The technical specifications and 
surveillance requirements are changed to add appropriate operational 
and testing requirements for the new relays and timers.
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
during subsequent refueling outages as specified in the amendments.
    Amendment No(s).: 188/188 and 195/195. A publicly-available version 
is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15307A776. Documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos.NPF-72 and NPF-77 and Renewed 
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66: The amendments 
revises the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52065).
    The April 30, 2015, and October 9, 2015, supplements contained 
clarifying information 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 December 21, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: December 22, 2014, as 
supplemented by letter dated September 29, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments add a new Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.10.8, ``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing,'' 
to allow reactor operations to remain in Mode 4 for specified testing 
with reactor coolant temperatures above the Mode 4 limit. TS 3.10.8 may 
only be used for (1) performance of an inservice leak or hydrostatic 
test, (2) as a consequence of maintaining adequate pressure for an 
inservice leak or hydrostatic test, or (3) as a consequence of 
maintaining adequate pressure for control rod scram time testing 
initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test.
    Date of issuance: December 17, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 248, 241, 219, 205, 261, and 256. Publicly-
available versions can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. 
ML15324A439; documents related to these amendments are listed in the 
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, 
DPR-29, and DPR-30: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications 
and the Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 
17089). The supplemental letter dated September 29, 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 December 17, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 
BVPS-2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 10, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the BVPS-1 
and BVPS-2 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses (RFOLs) and Technical 
Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the license amendments revised 
various sections associated with steam generators, including changes 
consistent with the guidance provided in Technical Specification Task 
Force Traveler-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program 
Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML110610350).
    Date of issuance: December 16, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 296 (Unit 1) and 184 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15294A439; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed 
with the amendments.
    RFOL Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments revised the RFOLs and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2015 (80 FR 
27198). The supplemental letter dated August 10, 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.

[[Page 269]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated December 16, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 9, 2015, and October 30, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, technical specifications to allow 
surveillance testing of the onsite standby emergency diesel generators 
during modes in which it was previously restricted. Specifically, the 
changes remove the mode restrictions in the notes of the surveillance 
requirements 3.8.1.10, EDG single largest load rejection test, 
3.8.1.11, EDG full load rejection test, and 3.8.1.15, EDG endurance 
run.
    Date of issuance: December 11, 2015.
    Effective date: These amendments are effective as of the date of 
issuance and shall be implemented within 140 days of issuance.
    Amendment No(s).: 330 for Unit 1 and 311 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15327A217; 
documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The 
amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 
13909). The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2015, and October 30, 
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 Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: December 26, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 11, September 18, November 2, and December 8, 
2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the current 
emergency action level scheme to a scheme based on Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action 
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012.
    Date of issuance: December 15, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by June 30, 2016.
    Amendment No.: 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15288A005; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the operating license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR 
5801). The supplemental letters dated September 11, September 18, 
November 2, and December 8, 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 Safety Evaluation dated December 15, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 30, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the stored 
diesel fuel oil and lube oil numerical volume requirements in the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing them with diesel operating 
time requirements consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force 
Traveler-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil 
Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
    Date of issuance: December 14, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No(s).: 292 (Unit 1), 317 (Unit 2), and 275 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15324A247; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 
17104). The supplemental letter dated September 30, 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 Safety Evaluation dated December 14, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: A comment 
was received on the initial Federal Register notice regarding a Grand 
Gulf amendment, but the comment was unrelated to this licensing action.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 3, 2015, and July 30, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' to 
lower the value of the reactor steam dome pressure safety limit from 
the current 785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 585 psig. 
Lowering of this safety limit will effectively expand the validity 
range for the units' critical power correlations and the calculation of 
the minimum critical power ratio. Specifically, the revised value of 
585 psig is consistent with the lower range of the critical power 
correlations currently in use at the units. The revised value will also 
adequately bound a pressure regulator failure open transient event. No 
hardware, design or operational change is involved with this amendment.
    Date of issuance: December 16, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1), 318 (Unit 2), and 276 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15287A213; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

[[Page 270]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2015 (80 FR 
25721). The supplemental letters dated June 3, 2015, and July 30, 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 an SE dated December 16, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The 
comment received on Amendment Nos. 293, 318, and 276 is addressed in 
the SE dated December 16, 2015.

V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards 
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public 
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)

    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 for the 
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules 
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as 
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date 
of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be 
affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition 
to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject 
facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR 
part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 
2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically 
from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or

[[Page 271]]

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 cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, 
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by March 
7, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing 
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of 
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave 
to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec.  
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing 
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its 
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not 
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion 
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance 
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a 
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on 
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A 
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any 
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be 
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited 
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by 
March 7, 2016.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has

[[Page 272]]

been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the 
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require 
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a 
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-498, South Texas Project, 
Unit 1, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: December 3, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 9, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a footnote to 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.2, ``Control Rod Assemblies,'' to 
permit operation with 56 full-length control rods during Unit 1 Cycle 
20 instead of the normal 57 full-length control rod assemblies. This 
extension will allow completion of plans to repair or replace a single 
unreliable control rod. This amendment was necessitated by the 
discovery of the unreliable control rod during start up testing 
following the recently completed Unit 1 refueling outage.
    Date of issuance: December 11, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 24 hours of its date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--208. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15343A128; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-76: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 
2015.
    Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of December, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-33260 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P