[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43646-43656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15659]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0127]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from June 7, 2016, to June 20, 2016. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 21, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 4, 2016. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0127. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear

[[Page 43647]]

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0127 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0127.
     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-2016-0127, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the 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, or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment 
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the 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

[[Page 43648]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 43649]]

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, 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.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 5, 2016. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16134A068.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by the removal of Note (c), which is no 
longer applicable from TS Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered Safety Feature 
Actuation System Instrumentation,'' Function 6.f, ``Auxiliary Feedwater 
Pump Suction Transfer on Suction Pressure--Low,'' and the removal of an 
expired one-time Note for Required Action to restore Diesel Generator 
to OPERABLE status for TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative 
non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely 
affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The 
proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, 
systems and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits.
    Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed 
amendment does not significantly increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The 
proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any 
Structure, System or Component (SSC) or its function during accident 
conditions. No new or different accidents result from the proposed 
changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant or any changes in methods governing normal plant operation. 
The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed 
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The 
proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation 
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 
affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition.
    Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.


[[Page 43650]]


    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, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 26, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16064A020.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 
2, and 3 (Oconee). Specifically, the license amendment request (LAR) 
would revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' 
Required Action C.2.2.5, to allow each Keowee Hydroelectric Unit to be 
taken out of service for up to 55 days on a one-time basis for the 
purpose of generator stator replacement, subject to the implementation 
of specified contingency measures outlined in the LAR.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day 
Completion Time for Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required 
Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that one 
Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is inoperable for [greater than] 72 
hours, a Lee Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing both 
standby buses, two offsite power sources will be maintained 
available, and maintenance on electrical distribution systems will 
not be performed unless necessary. In addition, risk significant 
systems (Emergency Feedwater System, Protected Service Water System, 
and Standby Shutdown Facility) will be verified operable (meeting 
LCO requirements) within 72 hours of entering TS 3.8.1 Condition C 
(i.e., prior to use of the 55-day Completion Time of Required Action 
C.2.2.5). The temporary 55-day Completion Time will decrease the 
likelihood of an unplanned forced shutdown of all three Oconee Units 
and the potential safety consequences and operational risks 
associated with that action. Avoiding this risk offsets the risks 
associated with having a design basis event during the temporary 55-
day completion time for having one KHU inoperable.
    The temporary addition of the 55-day Completion Time does not 
involve: (1) A physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2) the 
installation of new or different equipment; (3) operating any 
installed equipment in a new or different manner; or (4) a change to 
any set points for parameters which initiate protective or 
mitigation action.
    There is no adverse impact on containment integrity, 
radiological release pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main 
steam relief valve set points, or radwaste systems. No new 
radiological release pathways are created.
    The consequences of an event occurring during the temporary 55-
day Completion Time are the same as those that would occur during 
the existing Completion Time. Duke Energy reviewed the Probabilistic 
Risk Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights concerning the 
configuration of [Oconee] with one KHU. The results of the risk 
analysis show a risk improvement if no maintenance is performed on 
the SSF, EFW System and AC Power System. The results of the risk 
analysis show a small risk increase using the average nominal 
maintenance unavailability values for the SSF, EFW System and AC 
Power System.
    By limiting maintenance, the risk results are expected to be 
between these two extremes (i.e., small risk impact).
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day 
Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with 
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1. During the time period that 
one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the emergency 
power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory measures 
previously specified will be in place to minimize electrical power 
system vulnerabilities.
    The temporary 55-day Completion Time does not involve a physical 
effect on the Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk of an 
Oconee Unit trip or reactivity excursion. No new failure modes or 
credible accident scenarios are postulated from this activity.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day 
Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with 
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1. During the time period that 
one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the emergency 
power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory measures 
previously specified will be in place to minimize electrical power 
system vulnerabilities.
    The proposed TS change does not involve: (1) a physical 
alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or 
different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new 
or different manner; (4) a change to any set points for parameters 
which initiate protective or mitigation action; or (5) any impact on 
the fission product barriers or safety limits.
    Therefore, this request does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the 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, 526 S. Church St.--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

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

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16120A076.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would (1) 
consolidate the Emergency Operations Facilities (EOFs) for BSEP, HNP, 
and RNP with the Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke

[[Page 43651]]

Energy) corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina; (2) change the 
BSEP, HNP, and RNP augmentation times to be consistent with those of 
the sites currently supported by the Duke Energy corporate EOF; and (3) 
decrease the frequency of the unannounced augmentation drill at BSEP 
from twice per year to once per year.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the BSEP, HNP, and RNP EOFs from 
their present onsite or near-site locations to the established 
corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changes the required 
response times for supplementing onsite personnel in response to a 
radiological emergency, and decreases the frequency of augmentation 
drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOFs 
will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. It has 
been evaluated and determined that the change in response time does 
not significantly affect the ability to supplement the onsite staff. 
In addition, analysis shows that the onsite staff can acceptably 
respond to an event for longer than the requested time for augmented 
staff to arrive. The proposed changes have no effect on normal plant 
operation or on any accident initiator or precursors, and do not 
impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components 
(SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of 
the emergency response organization to perform its intended 
functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes only impact the implementation of the 
affected stations' emergency plans by relocating their onsite or 
near-site EOFs to the established corporate EOF in Charlotte, North 
Carolina, changing the required response time of responders who 
supplement the onsite staff, and decreasing the frequency of 
augmentation drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the 
relocated EOFs will continue to meet the applicable regulatory 
requirements. It has been evaluated and determined that the change 
in response time does not significantly affect the ability to 
supplement the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows that the 
onsite staff can acceptably respond to an event for longer than the 
requested time for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed changes 
will not change the design function or operation of SSCs. The 
changes do not impact the accident analysis. The changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant, a change in the method 
of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed changes do 
not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and 
the changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes only impacts the implementation of the 
affected stations' emergency plans by relocating their onsite or 
near-site EOFs to the established corporate EOF in Charlotte, North 
Carolina, changing the required response time of responders who 
supplement the onsite staff, and decreasing the frequency of 
augmentation drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the 
relocated EOFs will continue to meet the applicable regulatory 
requirements. It has been evaluated and determined that the change 
in response time does not significantly affect the ability to 
supplement the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows that the 
onsite staff can acceptably respond to an event for longer than the 
requested time for augmented staff to arrive. Margin of safety is 
associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product 
barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure 
boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation 
dose to the public. The proposed changes are associated with the 
emergency plans and do not impact operation of the plant or its 
response to transients or accidents. The changes do not affect the 
Technical Specifications. The changes do not involve a change in the 
method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected 
by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 
affected. The emergency plans will continue to provide the necessary 
response staff for emergencies as demonstrated by staffing and 
functional analyses including the necessary timeliness of performing 
major tasks for the functional areas of the emergency plans.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the 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, NC 28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2), Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 24, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16116A033.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 
2, ``Relocated TS Parameters to COLR.'' Based on TSTF-339, the proposed 
amendment would relocate reactor coolant system (RCS)-related cycle-
specific parameters and core safety limits from the technical 
specifications (TSs) to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The relocation of RCS-related cycle-specific parameter limits 
from the TS to the COLR proposed by this amendment request does not 
result in the alteration of the design, material, or construction 
standards that were applicable prior to the change. The proposed 
change will not result in the modification of any system interface 
that would increase the likelihood of an accident since these events 
are independent of the proposed change. The proposed amendment will 
not change, degrade, or prevent actions, or alter any assumptions 
previously made in evaluating the radiological consequences of an 
accident described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR). Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in an 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no new accident causal mechanisms created as a result 
of NRC approval of this amendment request. No changes are being made 
to the facility which would introduce any new accident causal 
mechanisms. This amendment request does not impact any plant systems 
that are accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed change does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant 
reduction in the

[[Page 43652]]

margin of safety. Previously approved methodologies will continue to 
be used in the determination of cycle-specific core operating limits 
that are present in the COLR. Additionally, previously approved RCS 
minimum total flow rates for HBRSEP2 are retained in the TS to 
assure that lower flow rates will not be used without prior NRC 
approval. Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed 
license amendment request does not impact any safety margins and 
will not result in a reduction in margin with respect to plant 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the 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, NC 28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Robert G. Schaaf.

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16110A266.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) requirements for snubbers. The licensee 
proposed to revise the TSs to conform to the licensee's Snubber Testing 
Program. The proposed changes include additions to, deletions from, and 
conforming administrative changes to the TSs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would revise TS SR [Surveillance 
Requirement] 4.7.6 to conform the TS to the revised surveillance 
program for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing and service life 
monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.55a(g).
    Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not 
an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly 
increased.
    Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by 
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life 
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized 
alternatives. The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for 
inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for 
consistency with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions 
or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and 
components to perform their design functions therefore, the 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly 
increased.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of 
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by 
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no 
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic 
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing 
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety 
analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and 
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by 
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life 
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized 
alternatives.
    The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for inoperable 
snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency 
with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 16, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A171.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved 
for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier 
2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and 
conforming changes to the combined license Appendix C, as well as 
conforming changes to the plant-specific Tier 1 information, to ensure 
that the design bases Tier 2 information conforms with the originally 
certified design. The licensee stated in its application that the 
changes are editorial, and with one exception, bring the plant-specific 
Tier 1 and Combined License (COL) Appendix C into alignment with the 
information contained in plant-specific Tier 2. In addition, the 
licensee requested a change to COL License Condition 2.D(12)(f)1 to 
correct a reference to a seismic interaction review discussed in the 
AP1000 design certification document, Revision 19, Section 3.7.5.3.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and 
plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one 
COL paragraph 2.D change, do not involve a technical change, (e.g., 
there is no design parameter or requirement, calculation, analysis, 
function or qualification change). No structure, system, component 
design or function would be affected. No design or safety analysis 
would be affected. The proposed changes do not affect any accident 
initiating event or component failure, thus the probabilities of the 
accidents previously evaluated are not affected. No function used to 
mitigate a radioactive material release and no radioactive material 
release source term is involved, thus the radiological releases in 
the accident analyses are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of

[[Page 43653]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and 
plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one 
COL paragraph 2.D change, would not affect the design or function of 
any structure, system, component (SSC), but will instead provide 
consistency between the SSC designs and functions currently 
presented in the UFSAR and the Tier 1 information. The proposed 
changes would not introduce a new failure mode, fault or sequence of 
events that could result in a radioactive material release. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and 
plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 update, along with one 
COL paragraph 2.D change, is non-technical, thus would not affect 
any design parameter, function or analysis. There would be no change 
to an existing design basis, design function, regulatory criterion, 
or analysis. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is involved. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the 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 Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 12, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A382.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved 
for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier 
2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and changes 
to the combined license Appendix A Technical Specifications to ensure 
that the listed minimum volume of the passive core cooling system core 
makeup tanks are aligned with the current inspections tests analyses 
and acceptance criteria and the relevant safety analysis.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT [Core Makeup 
Tank] volume in the COL [combined operating license] Appendix A 
(Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent 
with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements. 
Because the new minimum volume is bounded by the current analyses, 
the proposed activity does not alter the design of an accident 
initiating component or system. Thus, the probabilities of an 
accident previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed 
activity does not involve other safety-related equipment or 
radioactive material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity does not 
affect an accident mitigation function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the 
COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to 
be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C 
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety 
analyses are affected. No system or design function or equipment 
qualification is affected by the changes. The changes do not result 
in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could 
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This activity does not 
allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new 
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of 
events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the 
COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to 
be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C 
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety 
analyses are affected. No system design function or equipment is 
altered by this activity, and the proposed changes do not alter any 
design code, safety classification, or design margin. No safety 
analysis or design basis limit is involved with the requested 
change, and consequently, no margin of safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the 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 Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16139A796.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the technical specifications (TS) and Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated 
plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information. 
Specifically, the proposed departures consist of changes to the TS and 
UFSAR to revise the minimum volume of the passive core cooling system 
core makeup tanks.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT [core makeup 
tank] volume in the COL [combined operating license] Appendix A 
(Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent 
with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements. 
Because the new minimum volume is bounded by the current analyses, 
the proposed activity does not alter the design of an accident 
initiating component or system. Thus, the probabilities of an 
accident previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed 
activity does not involve other safety-related equipment or 
radioactive material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity does not 
affect an accident mitigation function.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

[[Page 43654]]

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the 
COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to 
be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C 
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety 
analyses are affected. No system or design function or equipment 
qualification is affected by the changes. The changes do not result 
in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could 
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This activity does not 
allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new 
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of 
events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the 
COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to 
be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C 
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety 
analyses are affected. No system design function or equipment is 
altered by this activity, and the proposed changes do not alter any 
design code, safety classification, or design margin. No safety 
analysis or design basis limit is involved with the requested 
change, and consequently, no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, 
the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the 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 amendments.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action, see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the 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 Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: July 17, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments correct a usage 
problem with recently issued Amendment Nos. 382, 384, and 383 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML13231A013), which precludes Oconee Nuclear Station 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] 
Sources--Operating,'' Condition H, from being used as planned. The 
change revises the note to TS 3.8.1, Required Actions L.1, L.2, and L.3 
to delete the 12-hour time limitation when the second Keowee 
Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is made inoperable for the purpose of 
restoring the KHU undergoing maintenance to OPERABLE status. Deletion 
of the 12-hour time limitation allows the use of the full 60-hour 
Completion Time of Required Action H.2 when the unit(s) have been in 
Condition C for greater than 72 hours, and both units are made 
inoperable for the purpose of restoring the KHU undergoing maintenance 
to OPERABLE status.
    Date of issuance: June 6, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 400 (Unit 1), 402 (Unit 2), and 401 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16138A332; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 
FR 69710).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the revised 
schedule for full implementation of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) for 
Milestone 8 by extending the date from June 30, 2016, to December 15, 
2017, and revised paragraphs 3.B and 3.G of Facility Operating License 
No. DPR-35 for PNPS to incorporate the revised CSP implementation 
schedule.
    Date of issuance: June 6, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 244. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16082A460; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 
65812).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 43655]]

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, 
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 
(DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendments: November 19, 2015, as 
supplemented by letter dated March 22, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed the BVPS 
and DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the license 
amendments revised TS 5.3.1, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,'' by 
incorporating an exception to American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) Standard N18.1-1971, ``Selection and Training of Nuclear Power 
Plant Personnel,'' such that licensed operators are only required to 
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR part 55, ``Operators' 
Licenses.''
    Date of issuance: June 7, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 297 and 185 for BVPS, Units 1 and 2, and 292 for 
DBNPS, Unit 1. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession 
No. ML16040A084. Documents related to these amendments are listed in 
the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, and NPF-3: 
The amendments revised the TSs and Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR 
2918). The supplemental letter dated March 22, 2016, contained 
clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial 
proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in an SE dated June 7, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell 
County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the current 
emergency action level scheme for CPNPP to a scheme based on Nuclear 
Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency 
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012.
    Date of issuance: June 14, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 270 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 166 (Unit 1) and 166 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A056; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses to authorize revision to the 
CPNPP Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR 
48923), and corrected on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The 
supplemental letters dated January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the 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 June 14, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016; March 31, 2016; and 
April 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised 
surveillance requirements (SRs) related to gas accumulation for the 
emergency core cooling system and added new SRs related to gas 
accumulation for the residual heat removal and containment spray 
systems, consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-
523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
    Date of issuance: June 16, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 217 (Unit 1) and 205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A406; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 
61484). The supplemental letters dated December 30, 2015; January 25, 
2016; March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the 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 June 16, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to provide a short Completion Time to restore an 
inoperable system for conditions under which the existing TSs require a 
plant shutdown. The amendment is consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, 
``Revise or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO [Limiting Condition 
for Operation] 3.0.3--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiatives 6b & 
6c,'' with certain plant-specific administrative variations.
    Date of issuance: June 8, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16139A804; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 
FR 73239).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 43656]]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: July 18, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 27, 2015, and May 2, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised 22 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by adopting multiple previously NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers. One 
proposed change is not included in this license amendment and will be 
addressed by further correspondence. Southern Nuclear Operating 
Company, Inc. (SNC) stated that these TSTF Travelers are generic 
changes chosen to increase the consistency between the Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant TSs, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications 
for Westinghouse plants (NUREG-1431), and the TSs of the other plants 
in the SNC fleet.
    Date of issuance: June 9, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 180 (Unit 1) and 161 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15132A569; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11480). The supplemental letters dated February 27, 2015, and May 2, 
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposal 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 June 9, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, 
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: April 13, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments consist of changes 
to the Technical Specifications consistent with the NRC-approved 
Technical Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler-432, Revision 1, ``Change in Technical 
Specifications End States (WCAP-16294),'' dated November 29, 2010.
    Date of issuance: June 10, 2016.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 202 (Unit 1) and 198 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15289A227; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendments 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 
30102). The supplemental letters dated September 17, 2015, and April 
13, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the 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 June 10, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-15659 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P