[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19641-19651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07168]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0058]


Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a 
hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is 
considering approval of six amendment requests. The amendment requests 
are for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 
2 and 3, River Bend Station, Unit 1, and Prairie Island Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. For each amendment request, the NRC 
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request 
contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 5, 2016. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 6, 2016. Any potential party as defined in Sec.  
2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must 
request document access by April 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0058. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0058 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0058.
     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.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0058, 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 enters the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit

[[Page 19642]]

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. Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this 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 notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.

III. Notice 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 Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period 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 a notice of issuance in 
the Federal Register. 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

[[Page 19643]]

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 June 
6, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing 
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of 
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave 
to intervene set forth in this section, except that under 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 
June 6, 2016.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the 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

[[Page 19644]]

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.
    For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the 
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible 
electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to 
[email protected].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona
    Date of amendment request: November 25, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 29, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML15336A087 and ML16043A361, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for PVNGS by 
modifying the requirements to incorporate the results of an updated 
criticality safety analysis for both new and spent fuel storage.
    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 amendment would modify the [PVNGS TS] to 
incorporate the results of an updated criticality safety analysis 
for both new fuel and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality 
safety analysis provides an updated methodology that allows credit 
for neutron absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and 
corrects non-conservative input assumptions in the previous 
criticality safety analysis.
    The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel 
handling processes, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in 
the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation rate, or the SFP 
cooling and cleanup system. The proposed amendment was evaluated for 
impact on the following previously evaluated events and accidents:

 Fuel handling accident (FHA)
 fuel misload event
 SFP boron dilution event
 seismic event
 loss of SFP cooling event

    Implementation of the proposed amendment will be accomplished in 
accordance with the Spent Fuel Pool Transition Plan and does not 
involve new fuel handling equipment or processes. The radiological 
source term of the fuel assemblies is not affected by the proposed 
amendment request. The FHA radiological dose consequences associated 
with fuel enrichment at this level are addressed in the PVNGS 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.7.4 and 
remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of a[n] FHA.
    To address the proposed additional arrays, several elements of 
the current process were reviewed. Pool layout, region eligibility 
specifications and the development of fuel move sheets are separate 
tasks. Each of these activities is procedurally controlled and 
performed by trained and qualified individuals. This segregation of 
activities separates and insulates the complexity of [SFP] module 
geometry, fuel region specifications and interface considerations 
from the development of fuel movement sheets.
    Creation of fuel move sheets in accordance with the proposed 
amendment will not significantly change the probability of a fuel 
misload event because development of fuel move sheets will continue 
to be controlled by approved procedures and developed by qualified 
personnel. A review of the additional proposed arrays and the 
transitional period (when both the current and new arrays would be 
effective in the [SFP]) was performed. The human performance shaping 
factors evaluated did not identify significant potential impacts due 
to the process changes themselves or the additional arrays. The 
review, therefore, confirmed that the potential for human 
performance errors resulting in the probability of a misload event 
is not significantly increased.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
significantly change the probability of a fuel misload event because 
fuel movement activities will continue to be controlled by approved 
fuel handling procedures and performed by qualified personnel. 
Although there will be additional allowable storage arrays defined 
by the amendment, the fuel handling procedures will continue to 
require identification of the initial and target locations for each 
fuel assembly that is moved.
    The consequences of a fuel misload event are not changed because 
the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality 
criteria and requirements continue to be met for the limiting fuel 
misload event.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability or consequences of a boron dilution event 
because the systems and events that could affect SFP soluble boron 
concentration are unchanged. The current boron dilution analysis 
demonstrates that the limiting boron dilution event will reduce the 
boron concentration from the TS limit of 2150 [parts per million 
(ppm)] to 1900 ppm. This leaves sufficient margin to the 1460 ppm 
credited by the SFP criticality safety analysis. The analysis 
confirms that the time needed

[[Page 19645]]

for dilution to reduce the soluble boron concentration is greater 
than the time needed for actions to be taken to prevent further 
dilution.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a seismic event since there are no 
elements of the updated criticality analysis that influence the 
occurrence of a seismic event. The consequences of a seismic event 
are not significantly increased because the forcing functions for 
seismic excitation are not increased and because the mass of storage 
racks with NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts is not appreciably 
increased. Seismic analyses demonstrate adequate stress levels in 
the storage racks when inserts are installed.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a loss of SFP cooling event because the 
systems and events that could affect SFP cooling are unchanged. The 
consequences are not significantly increased because there are no 
changes in the SFP heat load or SFP cooling systems, structures, or 
components. Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate that the 
current design requirements and criteria continue to be met with the 
NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts installed.
    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 amendment would modify the PVNGS TS to incorporate 
the results of an updated criticality safety analysis for both new 
fuel and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality safety analysis 
provides an updated methodology that allows credit for neutron 
absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and corrects non-
conservative input assumptions in the previous criticality safety 
analysis.
    The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel 
handling processes, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in 
the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup 
system. The effects of operating with the proposed amendment are 
listed below. The proposed amendment was evaluated for the potential 
of each effect to create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident:
     Addition of inserts to the SFP storage racks,
     new storage patterns,
     additional weight from the inserts, and
     displacement of SFP water by the inserts.
    Each NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] insert will be placed between a fuel 
assembly and the storage cell wall, taking up some of the space 
available on two sides of the fuel assembly. Analyses demonstrate 
that the presence of the inserts does not adversely affect spent 
fuel cooling, seismic capability, or subcriticality. The aluminum 
and boron carbide materials of construction have been shown to be 
compatible with nuclear fuel, storage racks, and SFP environments, 
and generate no adverse material interactions. Therefore, placing 
the inserts into the SFP storage racks cannot cause a new or 
different kind of accident.
    Operation with the added weight of the NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] 
inserts will not create a new or different accident. The analyses of 
the racks with NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts installed demonstrate 
that the stress levels in the rack modules continue to be 
considerably less than allowable stress limits. Therefore, the added 
weight from the inserts cannot cause a new or different kind of 
accident.
    Operation with the proposed fuel storage patterns will not 
create a new or different kind of accident because fuel movement 
will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. 
These procedures continue to require identification of the initial 
and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved. There are 
no changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel 
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements. Analyses 
demonstrate that the proposed storage patterns meet these 
requirements and criteria with adequate margins. Therefore, the 
proposed storage patterns cannot cause a new or different kind of 
accident.
    The scenario involving the inadvertent removal of a SNAP-
IN[supreg] insert was evaluated and found to not represent a ``new 
or different kind of accident.'' Rather, it represents a loss of 
reactivity configuration control, which is a less significant form 
of a fuel assembly misload event. Whenever a fuel assembly is placed 
in a storage configuration that is not explicitly allowed, a fuel 
assembly misload condition is created, whether it is the removal of 
a SNAP-IN[supreg] insert or the placement of a fuel assembly in a 
location that is missing a specified SNAP-IN[supreg] insert. An 
inadvertent removal of a SNAP-IN[supreg] insert is, therefore, not a 
new kind of accident but rather an alternate way of creating a 
previously evaluated accident. Loading a fuel assembly into a 
storage cell location required to be vacant and blocked (the 
limiting accident of this type) bounds the removal of a SNAP-
IN[supreg] insert.
    Operation with insert movement above stored fuel will not create 
a new or different kind of accident. The insert with its handling 
tool weighs less than the weight of a single fuel assembly. Single 
fuel assemblies are routinely moved safely over fuel assemblies and 
the same level of safety in design and operation will be maintained 
when moving the inserts.
    The installed rack inserts will displace a negligible quantity 
of the SFP water volume and therefore, will not reduce operator 
response time to previously-evaluated SFP accidents.
    The accidents and events previously analyzed remain bounding. 
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would modify the TS to incorporate the 
results of an updated criticality safety analysis for both new fuel 
and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality safety analysis 
provides an updated methodology that allows credit for neutron 
absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] rack inserts and corrects non-
conservative input assumptions in the previous criticality safety 
analysis. It was evaluated for its effect on current margins of 
safety as they relate to criticality, structural integrity, and 
spent fuel heat removal capability. The margin of safety for 
subcriticality required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. New 
criticality analyses confirm that operation in accordance with the 
proposed amendment continues to meet the required subcriticality 
margins.
    The structural evaluations for the racks and [SFP] with NETCO-
SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts installed show that the rack and SFP are 
unimpaired by loading combinations during seismic motion, and there 
is no adverse seismic-induced interaction between the rack and 
NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts.
    The proposed amendment does not affect spent fuel heat 
generation, heat removal from the fuel assembly, or the SFP cooling 
systems. The effects of the NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts are 
negligible with regards to volume of water in the pool, flow in the 
SFP rack cells, and heat removal system performance.
    The addition of a Spent Fuel Pool Rack Neutron Absorber 
Monitoring program (proposed TS 5.5.21) provides a method to 
identify potential degradation in the neutron absorber material 
prior to challenging the assumptions of the criticality safety 
analysis related to the material. Therefore, the addition of this 
monitoring program does not reduce the margin of safety; rather it 
ensures the margin of safety is maintained for the planned life of 
the spent fuel storage racks.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina; 
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15323A351.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains

[[Page 19646]]

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment requested plant-specific review and approval of a reactor 
core design methodology report DPC-NE-3008-P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-
Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' for adoption into the HNP 
and RNP Technical Specifications.
    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 requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-
P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' 
to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B. 
Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). The benchmark calculations 
performed confirm the accuracy of the codes and models. The proposed 
use of this methodology does not affect the performance of any 
equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. 
There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in 
accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated 
and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to 
offsite or onsite dose as the result of an 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 change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-
P, Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' 
to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B. 
Robinson Steam Electric Plat (RNP). It does not change any system 
functions or maintenance activities. The change does not physically 
alter the plant, that is, no new or different type of equipment will 
be installed. The software is not installed in any plant equipment, 
and therefore the software is incapable of initiating an equipment 
malfunction that would result in a new or different type of accident 
from any previously evaluated. The change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analyses but ensures that the core will operate 
within safe limits. This change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms which are not identifiable during testing, and no new 
accident precursors are generated.
    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.
    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. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. 
The proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-P, 
Revision 0, ``Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,'' to 
be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B. 
Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). DPC-NE-3008-P will be used in 
thermal-hydraulic transient analyses as a portion of the overall 
Duke Energy methodology for cycle reload safety analyses. As with 
the existing methodology, the Duke Energy methodology will continue 
to ensure (a) the acceptability of analytical limits under normal, 
transient, and accident conditions, and (b) that all applicable 
design and safety limits are satisfied such that the fission product 
barriers will continue to perform their design functions.
    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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15362A169.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise the as-found lift setting tolerance for main 
steam line code safety valves (MSSVs), revise the nominal reactor trip 
setpoint on pressurizer water level, and revise pressurizer water level 
span in the Technical Specifications (TS).
    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 TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found 
MSSV setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. In 
addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative 
change to the reactor trip on high pressurizer level and makes TS 
3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in the re-
analysis of the HNP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Section 
15.2.3 turbine trip overpressure event. The proposed changes do not 
alter the MSSV nominal lift setpoints. The proposed TS changes have 
been evaluated on a plant specific basis. The required plant 
specific analyses and evaluations included transient analysis of the 
turbine trip event (FSAR, Section 15.2.3), evaluation of the changes 
on the peak clad temperature from the [Small Break] Loss of Coolant 
Accident (LOCA) event, and disposition of the changes on all other 
FSAR events. The revised analysis evaluations were based on the 
existing design pressure of the reactor coolant system (RCS) and the 
main steam (MS) system.
    These analyses and evaluations demonstrate that there is 
adequate margin to the specified acceptable fuel design limits 
(SAFDL) and the design pressures of the RCS and the MS system. The 
evaluations also demonstrate that the change will result in 
acceptable peak clad temperature (PCT) results for LOCA analyses. 
The change has no impact on the design pressure for the containment 
as peak containment pressure and temperature are obtained from 
postulated pipe breaks in the containment that do not challenge the 
MSSV lift setpoints. The MSSVs vent directly to open, ambient 
conditions and do not directly contribute to the temperature or 
pressure profile for any structure, system, or component.
    There is a change in the flow rate credited for the auxiliary 
feedwater system (AFW) based on the higher MSSV opening tolerance. 
This change has been evaluated for each of the FSAR Chapter 15 
events. The impact of the decrease in AFW flow is included in the 
PCT change for SB [small break] LOCA. The AFW flow effects for all 
other events have been determined to be acceptable.
    As a result, the probability of a malfunction of the RCS and the 
main steam system are not increased and the consequences of such an 
accident remain acceptable. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do 
not significantly increase 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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found 
MSSV setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. In 
addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative 
change to the reactor trip on high pressurizer level and makes TS 
3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in the re-
analysis of the FSAR, Section 15.2.3 turbine trip overpressure 
event.

[[Page 19647]]

    Plant specific analyses and evaluations indicate that the plant 
response to any previously evaluated event will remain acceptable. 
All plant systems, structures, and components will continue to be 
capable of performing their required safety function as required by 
event analysis guidance.
    The proposed TS changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift 
setpoints. The operation and response of the affected equipment 
important to safety has been evaluated and found to be acceptable. 
All structures and components will continue to be operated within 
acceptable operating and/or design parameters. No system, structure, 
or component will be subjected to a condition that has not been 
evaluated and determined to be acceptable using the guidance 
required for specific event analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found 
MSSV setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%. In 
addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative 
change to the reactor trip setpoint on high pressurizer level and 
makes TS 3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in 
the re-analysis of the FSAR Section, 15.2.3 turbine trip 
overpressure event.
    The proposed TS changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift 
setpoints. The operation and response of the affected equipment 
important to safety is unchanged. All systems, structures, and 
components will continue to be operated within acceptable operating 
and/or design parameters. The calculated peak reactor vessel 
pressure and main steam system pressure for the turbine trip 
overpressure event remains within the acceptance criteria. A new 
analysis is submitted to support the change. The model used for the 
re-analyzed turbine trip event (FSAR, Section 15.2.3) is based on 
methodologies previously approved by the NRC for other licensees.
    The consequences of the turbine trip event continue to be within 
the regulatory limit for the event, thus the margin of safety for 
overpressure remains unchanged. The impact on LOCA has been 
evaluated and the PCT change results in a PCT that is lower than the 
regulatory limit. Therefore, the margin to safety for cladding 
performance in this event is not reduced.
    The margin of safety for the containment is unaffected by the 
proposed change. Therefore, the proposed TS 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: Lara Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, North 
Carolina 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New 
York
    Date of amendment request: December 10, 2015. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15350A006.
    Description of amendment request: These amendment requests contain 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendments would revise the near end-of-life moderator temperature 
coefficient (MTC) surveillance requirement and technical specification 
(TS) for Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, by placing 
a set of conditions on reactor core operation, which if met, would 
allow revision from the required MTC measurement.
    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 safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density 
coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases 
for and values of the most negative MTC Limiting Condition for 
Operation and for the Surveillance Requirement are not changing. 
Instead, a revised prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance 
limit to determine if the limit is met.
    The proposed changes to the TS do not affect the initiators of 
any analyzed accident. In addition, operation in accordance with the 
proposed TS changes ensures that the previously evaluated accidents 
will continue to be mitigated as analyzed. The proposed changes do 
not adversely affect the design function or operation of any 
structures, systems, and components important to safety.
    The probability or consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated in the [updated final safety analysis report] UFSAR are 
unaffected by this proposed change because there is no change to any 
equipment response or accident mitigation scenario. There are no new 
or additional challenges to fission product barrier integrity.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The 
proposed changes do not create any new failure modes for existing 
equipment or any new limiting single failures.
    Additionally the proposed changes do not involve a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation and all safety functions 
will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses. 
Thus, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the design 
function or operation of any structures, systems, and components 
important to safety.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. 
The proposed changes do not challenge the performance or integrity 
of any safety-related system.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no effect 
on the availability, operability, or performance of the safety-
related systems and components. A change to a surveillance 
requirement is proposed based on an alternate method of confirming 
that the surveillance is met. The Technical Specification Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) limits are not being changed.
    The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of 
plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident 
analysis.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the 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. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, 
New York 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015, as revised by letter 
dated December 3, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under

[[Page 19648]]

Accession Nos. ML15188A369 and ML15345A389, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). This 
amendment request proposes to change the RBS Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and 
proposes a revision to the existing operating license Physical 
Protection license condition. The revised submittal reflects 
administrative changes made to remove security-related information 
only, and did not change the technical content of the original 
submittal.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), in the letter dated 
December 3, 2015, 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 CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance 
capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to 
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact 
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the CSP implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In 
addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the 
CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken 
which provide adequate protection during this period of time. 
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result 
of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Northern States Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 
Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15327A244.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The 
amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.16, ``Spent 
Fuel Storage Pool Boron Concentration,'' and TS 4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage 
Criticality,'' to allow spent fuel pool storage of nuclear fuel 
containing a boron-based neutron absorber in the form of zirconium 
diboride (ZrB2) Integral Fuel Burnable Absorber.
    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 amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel 
handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies 
that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat 
generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup system. The proposed 
amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously-
evaluated criticality events and accidents and no impacts were 
identified: (1) Fuel assembly misloading, (2) loss of spent fuel 
pool cooling, and (3) spent fuel boron dilution.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel 
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection 
and fuel handling procedures. These procedures continue to require 
identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel 
assembly and fuel assembly insert that is moved. The consequences of 
a fuel misloading event are not changed because the reactivity 
analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and 
requirements continue to be met for the worst-case fuel misloading 
event.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because 
the change in fuel burnup requirements and SFP boron concentration 
have no bearing on the systems, structures, and components involved 
in initiating such an event. The proposed amendment does not change 
the heat load imposed by spent fuel assemblies nor does it change 
the flow paths in the spent fuel pool. Finally, a criticality 
analysis of the limiting fuel loading configuration confirmed that 
the condition would remain subcritical at the resulting temperature 
value. Therefore, the accident consequences are not increased for 
the proposed amendment.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a boron dilution event because the 
incremental changes in TS values have no bearing on the systems, 
structures, and components involved in initiating or sustaining the 
intrusion of unborated water to the spent fuel pool. The 
consequences of a boron dilution event are unchanged because the 
proposed amendment has no bearing on the systems that operators 
would use to identify and terminate a dilution event. Also, 
implementation of the proposed amendment will not affect any of the 
other key parameters of the boron dilution analysis which includes 
SFP water inventory, volume of SFP contents, the assumed initial 
boron concentration of the accident, and the sources of dilution 
water. Finally, a criticality analysis of the limiting fuel loading 
configuration confirmed that the dilution event would be terminated 
at a soluble boron concentration value that ensured a subcritical 
condition.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of a criticality 
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 involve incremental changes to TS values, 
and represent minimal

[[Page 19649]]

change to existing fuel selection and SFP loading procedures. 
Further, the proposed changes involve no change to plant systems, 
structures, components or to the processes for fuel handling. The 
proposed changes do not involve new SFP loading configurations and 
do not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, fuel 
storage racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the 
pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and 
cleanup system. As such, the proposed changes introduce no new 
material interactions, man-machine interfaces, or processes that 
could create the potential for an accident of a new or different 
type.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current 
margins of safety as they relate to criticality. The margin of 
safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4) is 
unchanged. The new criticality analysis confirms that operation in 
accordance with the proposed amendment continues to meet the 
required subcriticality margin. Increasing the minimum SFP soluble 
boron concentration ensures that subcriticality margins will be 
preserved, and increases the margin of safety associated with a 
boron dilution event.
    Therefore, 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New 
York
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Northern States Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 
Minnesota
    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties 
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and 
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who 
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may 
request such access. A ``potential party'' is any person who intends to 
participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an 
admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 
submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not 
be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, 
addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
    C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to 
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General 
Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the 
General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or 
courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email 
address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General 
Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected], 
respectively.\1\ The request must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this 
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's 
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these 
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this 
Federal Register notice;
    (2) The name and address of the potential party and a description 
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed 
by the action identified in C.(1); and
    (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to 
SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in 
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In 
particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of 
the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis 
and specificity for a proffered contention.
    D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under 
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt 
of the request whether:
    (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely 
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
    (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to 
SUNSI.
    E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both 
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in 
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification 
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the 
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access 
those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, 
the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective 
Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the 
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who 
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure 
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding 
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer 
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the 
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that 
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made 
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after 
the requestor is

[[Page 19650]]

granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days 
remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the 
information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as 
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the 
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This 
provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing 
and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of 
10 CFR 2.309.
    G. Review of Denials of Access.
    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff 
after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff 
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the 
reason or reasons for the denial.
    (2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse 
determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that 
determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this 
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief 
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another 
administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been 
designated to rule on information access issues.
    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may 
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose 
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. 
Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge 
within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of 
access.
    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these 
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes 
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory 
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff 
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the 
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals 
of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a 
presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the 
initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers 
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests 
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely 
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying 
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions 
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. 
Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for 
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
    It is so ordered.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 23rd day of March, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.

Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving 
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information in This Proceeding

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Day                             Event/activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................  Publication of Federal Register notice of
                            hearing and opportunity to petition for
                            leave to intervene, including order with
                            instructions for access requests.
10.......................  Deadline for submitting requests for access
                            to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
                            Information (SUNSI) with information:
                            Supporting the standing of a potential party
                            identified by name and address; describing
                            the need for the information in order for
                            the potential party to participate
                            meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60.......................  Deadline for submitting petition for
                            intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
                            of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
                            formulation does not require access to SUNSI
                            (+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
                            +7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20.......................  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
                            staff informs the requester of the staff's
                            determination whether the request for access
                            provides a reasonable basis to believe
                            standing can be established and shows need
                            for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
                            to the proceeding whose interest independent
                            of the proceeding would be harmed by the
                            release of the information.) If NRC staff
                            makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
                            likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
                            document processing (preparation of
                            redactions or review of redacted documents).
25.......................  If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
                            likelihood of standing, the deadline for
                            petitioner/requester to file a motion
                            seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
                            denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
                            access determination with the presiding
                            officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
                            other designated officer, as appropriate).
                            If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
                            deadline for any party to the proceeding
                            whose interest independent of the proceeding
                            would be harmed by the release of the
                            information to file a motion seeking a
                            ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
                            access.
30.......................  Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
                            reverse NRC staff determination(s).
40.......................  (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
                            need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
                            complete information processing and file
                            motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
                            Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
                            licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
                            for SUNSI.
A........................  If access granted: Issuance of presiding
                            officer or other designated officer decision
                            on motion for protective order for access to
                            sensitive information (including schedule
                            for providing access and submission of
                            contentions) or decision reversing a final
                            adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3....................  Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
                            Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
                            consistent with decision issuing the
                            protective order.
A + 28...................  Deadline for submission of contentions whose
                            development depends upon access to SUNSI.
                            However, if more than 25 days remain between
                            the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
                            the information and the deadline for filing
                            all other contentions (as established in the
                            notice of hearing or opportunity for
                            hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI
                            contentions by that later deadline.
A + 53...................  (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
                            contentions whose development depends upon
                            access to SUNSI.
A + 60...................  (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
                            reply to answers.
>A + 60..................  Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19651]]

[FR Doc. 2016-07168 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P