Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 8355 

Agenda 

Wednesday, May 6, 2015 

7:15 p.m.–9:00 p.m. Closed—Briefing of 

panel 

Thursday, May 7, 2015 

7:15 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Open—Review of the 

MRSEC 

5:00 p.m.–6:45 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session 

6:45 p.m.–8:30 p.m. Open—Dinner 

Friday, May 8, 2015 

7:15 a.m.–9:50 a.m. Closed—Executive 

Session 

9:50 a.m.–4:00 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session, Draft and Review Report 

Reason for Closing: The work being 

reviewed during this site visit may include 

information of a proprietary or confidential 

nature, including technical information; 

financial data, such as salaries and personal 

information concerning individuals 

associated with the MRSEC. These matters 

are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 

(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. 

Dated: February 11, 2015. 

Suzanne Plimpton, 

Acting Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03175 Filed 2–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Proposal Review Panel for Materials 

Research; Notice of Meeting 

In accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463 as amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Proposal Review Panel for Materials 

Research (#1203); Materials Research Science 

and Engineering Center (MRSEC), University 

of Utah Site Visit. 

Dates & Times: 

May 27, 2015; 7:15 p.m.–9:00 p.m. 

May 28, 2015; 7:15 a.m.–8:30 p.m. 

May 29, 2015; 7:15 a.m.–4:00 p.m. 

Place: University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 

UT 84112. 

Type of Meeting: Part open. 

Contact Person: Dr. Daniele Finotello, 

Program Director, Materials Research Science 

and Engineering Centers Program, Division of 

Materials Research, Room 1065, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 

Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292– 

4676. 

Purpose Of Meeting: To provide advice and 

recommendations concerning further support 

of the MRSEC at the University of Utah. 

Agenda 

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 

7:15 p.m.–9:00 p.m. Closed—Briefing of 

panel. 

Thursday, May 28, 2015 

7:15 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Open—Review of the 

MRSEC. 

5:00 p.m.–6:45 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session. 

6:45 p.m.–8:30 p.m. Open—Dinner. 

Friday, May 29, 2015 

7:15 a.m.–9:50 a.m. Closed—Executive 

Session. 

9:50 a.m.–4:00 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session, Draft and Review Report. 

Reason For Closing: The work being 

reviewed during the site visit may include 

information of a proprietary or confidential 

nature, including technical information; 

financial data, such as salaries and personal 

information concerning individuals 

associated with the MRSEC. These matters 

are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 

(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. 

Dated: February 11, 2015. 

Suzanne Plimpton, 

Acting Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03176 Filed 2–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Proposal Review Panel for Materials 

Research; Notice of Meeting 

In accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463 as amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Proposal Review Panel for Materials 

Research (#1203); Materials Research Science 

and Engineering Center (MRSEC), University 

of Michigan Site Visit. 

Dates & Times: 

June 3, 2015; 7:15 p.m.–9:00 p.m. 

June 4, 2015; 7:15 a.m.–8:30 p.m. 

June 5, 2015; 7:15 a.m.–4:00 p.m. 

Place: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 

MI 48109. 

Type of Meeting: Part open. 

Contact Person: Dr. Daniele Finotello, 

Program Director, Materials Research Science 

and Engineering Centers Program, Division of 

Materials Research, Room 1065, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 

Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292– 

4676. 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and 

recommendations concerning further support 

of the MRSEC at the University of Michigan. 

Agenda 

Wednesday, June 3, 2015 

7:15 p.m.–9:00 p.m. Closed—Briefing of 

panel 

Thursday, June 4, 2015 

7:15 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Open—Review of the 

MRSEC 

5:00 p.m.–6:45 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session 

6:45 p.m.–8:30 p.m. Open—Dinner 

Friday, June 5, 2015 

7:15 a.m.–9:50 a.m. Closed—Executive 

Session 

9:50 a.m.–4:00 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session, Draft and Review Report 

Reason for Closing: The work being 

reviewed may include information of a 

proprietary or confidential nature, including 

technical information; financial data, such as 

salaries and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the MRSEC. 

These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the 

Sunshine Act. 

Dated: February 11, 2015. 

Suzanne Plimpton, 

Acting Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03172 Filed 2–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0029] 

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 January 22, 

2015 to February 4, 2015. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

February 3, 2015. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

March 19, 2015. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by April 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0029. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 

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: 

O12–H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

3760, email: Mable.Henderson@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– 

0029 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0029. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

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

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ 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–2015– 

0029 in the subject line of your 

comment submission, in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, 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 in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

Part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

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

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

by the above date, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 8357 

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 identify 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. 

If a hearing is requested, 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. 

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 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the 

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/esubmittals.html. Participants may 

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8358 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 

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, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: March 

28, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14091A291. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Operating License and the 

associated Technical Specifications to 

Permanently Defueled Technical 

Specifications consistent with the 

permanent cessation of reactor 

operation and permanent defueling of 

the reactor. 

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 

and staff’s changes/additions are 

provided in [ ]: 

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 not take 

effect until [Vermont Yankee] (VY) has 

permanently ceased operation and entered a 

permanently defueled condition. [On January 

12, 2015, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

provided certifications in accordance with 10 

CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) that VY had 

permanently ceased power operations on 

December 29, 2014, and that as of January 12, 

2015, all fuel had been permanently removed 

from the reactor vessel and placed in the 

spent fuel pool.] The proposed amendment 

would modify the VY [Operating License] 

(OL) and [Technical Specifications] (TS) by 

deleting the portions of the OL and TS that 

are no longer applicable to a permanently 

defueled facility, while modifying the other 

sections to correspond to the permanently 

defueled condition. This change is consistent 

with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36 for 

the contents of TS. 

Section 14 of the VY Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (UFSAR) describes the 

design basis accident (DBA) and transient 

scenarios applicable to VY during power 

operations. Once the reactor is in a 

permanently defueled condition, the spent 

fuel pool and its cooling systems will be 

dedicated only to spent fuel storage. In this 

condition, the spectrum of credible accidents 

will be much smaller than for an operational 

plant. Once the certifications are docketed by 

VY in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), 

and the consequent removal of authorization 

to operate the reactor or to place or retain 

fuel in the reactor vessel in accordance with 

10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the majority of the 

accident scenarios previously postulated in 

the UFSAR will no longer be possible and 

will be removed from the UFSAR under the 

provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. 

The deletion of TS definitions and rules of 

usage and application, that will not be 

applicable in a defueled condition, has no 

impact on facility SSCs or the methods of 

operation of such SSCs. The deletion of 

design features and safety limits not 

applicable to the permanently shutdown and 

defueled status of VY has no impact on the 

remaining applicable DBA, the Fuel 

Handling Accident (FHA). The removal of 

[Limiting Conditions for Operation] (LCOs) 

or [Surveillance Requirements] (SRs) that are 

related only to the operation of the nuclear 

reactor or only to the prevention, diagnosis, 

or mitigation of reactor related transients or 

accidents do not affect the applicable DBAs 

previously evaluated since these DBAs are no 

longer applicable in the defueled mode. The 

safety functions involving core reactivity 

control, reactor heat removal, reactor coolant 

system inventory control, and containment 

integrity are no longer applicable at VY as a 

permanently defueled plant. The analyzed 

[design basis] accidents involving damage to 

the reactor coolant system, main steam lines, 

reactor core, and the subsequent release of 

radioactive material [as a result of those 

accidents] will no longer be possible at VY. 

After VY permanently ceases operation, the 

future generation of fission products will 

cease and the remaining source term will 

decay. The radioactive decay of the irradiated 

fuel following shutdown of the reactor will 

have reduced the consequences of the FHA 

below those previously analyzed. 

The spent fuel pool (SFP) water level, 

temperature and storage TSs are retained to 

preserve the current requirements for safe 

storage of irradiated fuel. SFP cooling and 

makeup related equipment and support 

equipment (e.g., electrical power systems) are 

not required to be continuously available 

since there will be sufficient time to effect 

repairs, establish alternate sources of makeup 

flow, or establish alternate sources of cooling 

in the event of a loss of cooling and makeup 

flow to the SFP. 

The TS for outdoor tanks that contain 

radioactivity that are not surrounded by 

liners, dikes, or walls capable of holding the 

tank contents, or that do not have tank 

overflows and surrounding area drains 

connected to the liquid radwaste treatment 

system are retained to preserve the current 

requirements for safe storage of radioactive 

liquids. Restricting the quantity of 

radioactive material contained in the 

specified tanks provides assurance that in the 

event of an uncontrolled release of the tanks’ 

contents, the resulting concentrations would 

be less than the limits of 10 CFR part 

20.1001–20.2402, Appendix B, Table 2, 

Column 2, at the nearest potable water 

supply and in the nearest surface water 

supply in an unrestricted area. 

The probability of occurrence of previously 

evaluated accidents is not increased, since 

extended operation in a defueled condition 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 8359 

will be the only operation allowed, and 

therefore bounded by the existing analyses. 

Additionally, the occurrence of postulated 

accidents associated with reactor operation 

will no longer be credible in a permanently 

defueled reactor. This significantly reduces 

the scope of applicable accidents. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes have no impact on 

facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of 

irradiated fuel, or on the methods of 

operation of such SSCs, or on the handling 

and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The 

removal of TS that are related only to the 

operation of the nuclear reactor or only to the 

prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor 

related transients or accidents, cannot result 

in different or more adverse failure modes or 

accidents than previously evaluated because 

the reactor will be permanently shutdown 

and defueled and VY will no longer be 

authorized to operate the reactor. 

The proposed deletion of requirements of 

the VY OL and TS do not affect systems 

credited in the accident analysis for the FHA 

at VY. The proposed OL and TS will 

continue to require proper control and 

monitoring of safety significant parameters 

and activities. 

The proposed restriction on the SFP level 

is fulfilled by normal operating conditions 

and preserves initial conditions assumed in 

the analyses of the postulated DBA. The SFP 

water level, temperature, and storage TSs are 

retained to preserve the current requirements 

for safe storage of irradiated fuel. 

The TS for outdoor tanks that contain 

radioactivity that are not surrounded by 

liners, dikes, or walls capable of holding the 

tank contents, or that do not have tank 

overflows and surrounding area drains 

connected to the liquid radwaste treatment 

system are retained to preserve the current 

requirements for safe storage of radioactive 

liquids. 

The proposed amendment does not result 

in any new mechanisms that could initiate 

damage to the remaining relevant safety 

barriers for defueled plants (fuel cladding 

and spent fuel cooling). Since extended 

operation in a defueled condition will be the 

only operation allowed, and therefore 

bounded by the existing analyses, such a 

condition does not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for VY 

will no longer authorize operation of the 

reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel 

into the reactor vessel once the certifications 

required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) are submitted, 

as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 

occurrence of postulated accidents associated 

with reactor operation is no longer credible. 

The only remaining credible accident is a 

FHA. The proposed amendment does not 

adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of 

any of the design basis analyses that impact 

the FHA. 

The proposed changes are limited to those 

portions of the OL and TS that are not related 

to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The 

requirements that are proposed to be revised 

or deleted from the VY OL and TS are not 

credited in the existing accident analysis for 

the remaining applicable postulated accident; 

and as such, do not contribute to the margin 

of safety associated with the accident 

analysis. Postulated design basis accidents 

involving the reactor will no longer be 

possible because the reactor will be 

permanently shutdown and defueled and VY 

will no longer be authorized to operate the 

reactor. 

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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, 

Assistant General Counsel, Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton 

Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: 

September 4, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14254A405. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would delete 

from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Station (VY) Renewed Facility 

Operating License (OL) certain license 

conditions which impose specific 

requirements on the decommissioning 

trust agreement, on the basis that 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., has 

elected to subject its decommissioning 

trust agreement to the regulatory 

requirements for decommissioning trust 

funds that are specified in 10 CFR 

50.75(h). The option to delete license 

conditions relating to the terms and 

conditions of decommissioning trust 

agreements and, instead, conform 

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY to the 

regulations adopted by the NRC’s Final 

Rule for Decommissioning Trust 

Provisions published on December 24, 

2002 (67 FR 78332), was specifically 

contemplated by the provisions of 10 

CFR 50.75(h)(5). 

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 

and staff’s changes are provided in [ ]: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The requested changes delete certain 

license conditions pertaining to 

Decommissioning Trust Agreements 

currently in Section 3.J of the VY OL. 

The requested changes are consistent with 

the types of license amendments permitted in 

10 CFR 50.75(h)(5). 

The regulations of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(4) state 

‘‘Unless otherwise determined by the 

Commission with regard to a specific 

application, the Commission has determined 

that any amendment to the license of a 

utilization facility that does no more than 

delete specific license conditions relating to 

the terms and conditions of decommissioning 

trust agreements involves no significant 

hazard considerations.’’ 

This request involves changes that are 

administrative in nature. No actual plant 

equipment or accident analyses will be 

affected by the proposed changes. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This request involves administrative 

changes to the license that will be consistent 

with the NRC’s regulations at 10 CFR 

50.75(h). 

No actual plant equipment or accident 

analyses will be affected by the proposed 

change[s] and no failure modes not bounded 

by previously evaluated accidents will be 

created. 

Therefore, the proposed change[s] do[es] 

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. 

This request involves administrative 

changes to the license that will be consistent 

with the NRC’s regulations at 10 CFR 

50.75(h). 

Margin of safety is associated with 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to limit the level of radiation 

dose to the public. 

No actual plant equipment or accident 

analyses will be affected by the proposed 

change[s]. Additionally, the proposed 

changes will not relax any criteria used to 

establish safety limits, will not relax any 

safety systems settings, or will not relax the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 

bases for any limiting conditions of 

operation. 

Therefore, the proposed change[s] do[es] 

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., 400 Hamilton 

Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 

(GGNS), Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of amendment request: June 26, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14177A270. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the GGNS Technical Specifications 

(TSs) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 

for safety-related battery resistances in 

TS SRs 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5 for batteries 

1A3, 1B3, and 1C3. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS SRs 

for safety-related battery resistances in TS 

SRs 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5. This change 

addresses a potential non-conservative TS 

value. Therefore, the proposed change does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS SRs 

for safety-related battery resistances in TS 

SRs 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5. The change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., 

no new or different type of equipment will 

be installed) or a change in the methods 

governing normal plant operations. The 

change does not alter assumptions made in 

the safety analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS SRs 

for safety-related battery resistances in TS 

SRs 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5. The proposed change 

does not alter the manner in which safety 

limits, limiting safety system settings or 

limiting conditions for operation are 

determined. This change addresses a 

potential non-conservative TS value. 

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 Council— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 

Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of amendment request: October 

7, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated 

January 6, 2015. Publicly-available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML14280A092, and 

ML15006A229, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

or add technical specification (TS) 

surveillance requirements (SRs) that 

require verification that the Emergency 

Core Cooling System (ECCS), the 

Residual Heat Removal (RHR)/

Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, the 

Containment Spray (CS) System, and 

the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 

(RCIC) System are not rendered 

inoperable due to accumulated gas and 

to provide allowances, which permit 

performance of the revised verification. 

The changes are being made to address 

the concerns discussed in Generic Letter 

2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation 

in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 

Removal, and Containment Spray 

Systems.’’ The proposed TS changes are 

based on NRC-approved TS Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–523, Revision 2, 

‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas 

Accumulation,’’ dated February 21, 

2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13053A075). The NRC staff issued a 

Notice of Availability for TSTF–523, 

Revision 2, for plant-specific adoption 

using the consolidated line item 

improvement process, in the Federal 

Register on January 15, 2014 (79 FR 

2700). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds 

Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that 

require verification that the Emergency Core 

Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat 

Removal (RHR)/Shutdown Cooling (SDC) 

System, the Containment Spray (CS) System, 

and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) 

System are not rendered inoperable due to 

accumulated gas and to provide allowances 

which permit performance of the revised 

verification. Gas accumulation in the subject 

systems is not an initiator of any accident 

previously evaluated. As a result, the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated is not significantly increased. The 

proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems 

continue to be capable to perform their 

assumed safety function and are not rendered 

inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, 

the consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, the 

RHR/SDC System, the CS System, and the 

RCIC System are not rendered inoperable due 

to accumulated gas and to provide 

allowances which permit performance of the 

revised verification. The proposed change 

does not involve a physical alteration of the 

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

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. In addition, the proposed change 

does not impose any new or different 

requirements that could initiate an accident. 

The proposed change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis and 

is consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 8361 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, the 

DHR [Decay Heat Removal]/RHR/SDC 

System, the CS System, and the RCIC System 

are not rendered inoperable due to 

accumulated gas and to provide allowances 

which permit performance of the revised 

verification. The proposed change adds new 

requirements to manage gas accumulation in 

order to ensure the subject systems are 

capable of performing their assumed safety 

functions. The proposed SRs are more 

comprehensive than the current SRs and will 

ensure that the assumptions of the safety 

analysis are protected. The proposed change 

does not adversely affect any current plant 

safety margins or the reliability of the 

equipment assumed in the safety analysis. 

Therefore, there are no changes being made 

to any safety analysis assumptions, safety 

limits or limiting safety system settings that 

would adversely affect plant safety as a result 

of the proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Council— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Exelon Generation Company (EGC), 

LLC, Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station (CPS), Unit 1, DeWitt County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: 

November 17, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14321A882. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise technical 

specification (TS) 5.5.2, ‘‘Primary 

Coolant Sources Outside Containment,’’ 

to change the integrated leak testing 

frequency for systems subject to TS 

5.5.2 and make the provisions of 

surveillance requirement (SR) 3.0.2 

applicable to TS 5.5.2. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the CPS, Unit 1, 

TS 5.5.2, ‘‘Primary Coolant Sources Outside 

Containment’’ program, does not involve a 

physical change to the plant or a change in 

the manner in which the plant is operated or 

controlled. The proposed amendment affects 

only the interval at which integrated system 

leak tests are performed, not the effectiveness 

of the integrated leak test requirements for 

the identified systems. The proposed change 

effectively results in the performance of the 

integrated system leak tests at the same 

frequency that these tests are currently being 

performed. Incorporation of the allowance to 

extend the 24-month interval by 25%, as 

allowed by SR 3.0.2, does not significantly 

degrade the reliability that results from 

performing the surveillance at its specified 

frequency. Implementation of the proposed 

change will continue to provide adequate 

assurance that during design basis accidents, 

the containment and its components would 

limit leakage rates to less than the values 

assumed in the plant safety analyses. 

Test intervals are not considered as 

initiators of any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased by the proposed 

amendment. TS 5.5.2 continues to require the 

performance of periodic integrated system 

leak tests. As stated in TS 5.5.2, the required 

plan provides controls to minimize leakage 

from those portions of systems outside 

containment that could contain highly 

radioactive fluids during a serious transient 

or accident to levels as low as practicable. 

Therefore, accident analysis assumptions 

will still be verified. The proposed change 

does not impact the purpose of this plan. As 

a result, the consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

increased. 

Therefore, the probability and 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated will not be increased by this 

proposed change. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The testing requirements, to minimize 

leakage from those portions of systems 

outside containment that could contain 

highly radioactive fluids during a serious 

transient or accident, exist to ensure the 

plant’s ability to mitigate the consequences of 

an accident and do not involve any accident 

precursors or initiators. The proposed 

amendment affects only the interval at which 

integrated system leak tests are performed; 

they do not alter the design or physical 

configuration of the plant. The proposed 

change does not involve a physical change to 

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

equipment will be installed) or a change to 

the manner in which the plant is currently 

operated or controlled. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system setpoints, or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. The specific 

requirements and conditions of the primary 

coolant sources outside containment 

program, as proposed, will continue to 

ensure that the leakage from the identified 

systems outside containment is minimized. 

The proposed amendment provides operating 

flexibility without significantly affecting 

plant operation. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. 

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: October 

30, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14303A635. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise the 

Combined Licenses in regard to 

removing an unneeded supply line from 

the Compressed and Instrument Air 

System (CAS) to the generator breaker 

package, and its associated Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 

text referrals. 

Because, this proposed change 

requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control 

Document (DCD), the licensee also 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 

in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change deletes a nonsafetyrelated air supply line to the (main) generator 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8362 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 

circuit breaker (GCB) from the CAS. The 

proposed changes do not involve any 

accident initiating component/system failure 

or event, thus the probabilities of the 

accidents previously evaluated are not 

affected. The affected equipment does not 

affect or interact with safety-related 

equipment or a radioactive material barrier, 

and this activity does not involve the 

containment of radioactive material. Thus, 

the proposed changes would not affect any 

safety-related accident mitigating function. 

The radioactive material source terms and 

release paths used in the safety analyses are 

unchanged, thus the radiological releases in 

the UFSAR accident analyses are not 

affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change deletes a nonsafetyrelated air supply line to the GCB from CAS. 

No structure, system or component (SSC) or 

design function is affected, thus no 

equipment whose failure could initiate an 

accident is involved. No new interface with 

components that contain radioactive material 

is created. The proposed change does create 

a new fault or sequence of events that could 

result in a radioactive material release. 

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 change deletes a nonsafetyrelated air supply line to the GCB from CAS. 

The proposed changes do not affect any 

safety-related equipment or function. The 

UFSAR Chapters 6 and 15 analyses are not 

affected. No safety analysis or design basis 

acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 

exceeded by the proposed changes, thus a 

margin of safety is not directly nor indirectly 

affected. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. 

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004–2514. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

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 amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick 

County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment requests: 

September 25, 2012, as supplemented 

by letters dated December 17, 2012; June 

28, 2013; July 15, 2013; July 31, 2013; 

August 29, 2013; September 30, 2013; 

February 28, 2014; March 14, 2014; 

April 10, 2014; June 26, 2014; August 

15, 2014; August 29, 2014; November 

20, 2014; and December 18, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments authorize the transition of 

the Brunswick fire protection program 

to a risk-informed, performance-based 

program based on the National Fire 

Protection Association Standard 805 

(NFPA 805), ‘‘Performance-Based 

Standard for Fire Protection for Light 

Water Reactor Electric Generating 

Plants,’’ 2001 Edition, in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.48(c). The NFPA 805 

allows the use of performance-based 

methods, such as fire modeling and riskinformed methods such as fire 

probabilistic risk assessment, to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

nuclear safety performance criteria. 

Date of issuance: January 28, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 266 and 294. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14310A808; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

71 and DPR–62: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 13, 2013 (78 FR 

49300). The supplemental letters dated 

December 17, 2012; June 28, 2013; July 

15, 2013; July 31, 2013; August 29, 

2013; September 30, 2013; February 28, 

2014; March 14, 2014; April 10, 2014; 

June 26, 2014; August 15, 2014; August 

29, 2014; November 20, 2014; and 

December 18, 2014, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: March 

24, 2014, as supplemented by letters 

dated May 21, 2014, and August 14, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the site emergency 

plan for the permanently defueled 

condition to reflect changes in the onshift staffing and Emergency Response 

Organization staffing. 

Date of Issuance: February 4, 2015. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 8363 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 261. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14346A065. 

Documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–28: The amendment 

authorized revision to the Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site 

Emergency Plan. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42546). 

The supplemental letters dated May 

21, 2014, and August 14, 2014, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 4, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: Yes. The Safety 

Evaluation dated February 4, 2015, 

provides the discussion of the 

comments received from the state of 

Vermont. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 

(ANO–1), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: 

December 20, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 11, September 2, 

October 28, December 3, December 23, 

2014, and January 15, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment extended the ANO–1 10- 

year frequency of the containment 

integrated leak rate test (ILRT) to 15 

years on a permanent basis. The 

amendment also revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.16, ‘‘Reactor 

Building Leakage Rate Testing 

Program,’’ by incorporating Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 

94–01, Revision 2–A, as the 

implementation document for the ANO– 

1 performance-based leakage rate testing 

program. 

Date of issuance: February 3, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 252. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15014A071; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18331). 

The supplemental letters dated 

September 2, October 28, December 3, 

December 23, 2014, and January 15, 

2015, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 3, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle 

County, Illinois 

Date of amendment requests: August 

31, 2013. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise Technical 

Specifications Section 3.7.2, ‘‘Main 

Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs),’’ to 

incorporate the MSIV actuator trains 

into the Limiting Condition for 

Operation and provide associated 

Conditions and Required Actions. In 

addition, Surveillance Requirement 

3.7.2.2 is revised to clearly identify that 

the MSIV actuator trains are required to 

be tested. 

Date of issuance: January 30, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No(s).: 181 and 187. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML15007A555; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72. NPF–77, NPF–37, and NPF–66: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18332). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–352 and No. 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 

2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean 

County, New Jersey 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Date of amendment requests: August 

2, 2013. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modify the technical 

specification definition of ‘‘Shutdown 

Margin’’ (SDM) to require calculation of 

the SDM at a reactor moderator 

temperature of 68 °F or a higher 

temperature that represents the most 

reactive state throughout the operating 

cycle. This change addresses new 

boiling-water reactor fuel designs that 

may be more reactive at shutdown 

temperatures above 68 °F. 

Date of issuance: January 29, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 202, 242, 235, 211, 

197, 215, 197, 215, 176, 284, 295, 298, 

254, and 249. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14295A300; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

62, DPR–19, DPR–25, NPF–11, NPF–18, 

NPF–39, NPF–85, DPR–16, DPR–44, 

DPR–56, DPR–29, DPR–30: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specifications and Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 29, 2013 (78 FR 

64545). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8364 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 

Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, 

LaSalle County, Illinois 

Date of amendment requests: 

September 5, 2013. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments increase the peak 

calculated primary containment internal 

pressure which is specified in LSCS, 

Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 

5.5.13, ‘‘Primary Containment Leakage 

Rate Testing Program.’’ 

Date of issuance: January 29, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of the date of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 212 and 198. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14353A083; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

11 and NPF–18: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 10, 2013 (78 FR 

74182). The supplemental letters dated 

June 12 and October 7, 2014, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, 

Unit 2, St. Lucie County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: January 

30, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modified the St. Lucie 

Plant, Unit 2 Technical Specification 

(TS) 3/4.7.9, ‘‘Snubbers.’’ This change 

revised the TS surveillance 

requirements for snubbers to conform to 

the revised St. Lucie Snubber Testing 

Program. 

Date of issuance: January 20, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 169. The 

Amendment is publicly-available in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14342A785; documents related to 

this amendment are listed in the Safety 

Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–16: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR 

58818). The supplemental letters dated 

July 21, 2014, and October 23, 2014, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 20, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin 

Date of amendment request: July 2, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements to 

address NRC Generic Letter (GL) 2008– 

01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in 

Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 

Removal, and Containment Spray 

Systems,’’ as described in TSTF–523, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, 

Managing Gas Accumulation.’’ 

Date of issuance: January 27, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 251—Unit 1 and 

255—Unit 2. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15014A249; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–24 and DPR–27: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

License and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 12, 2014 (79 FR 

67202). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 27, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit 1, 

Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: 

September 10, 2013, as supplemented 

by letters dated March 12, 2014, June 

12, 2014, December 11, 2014, and 

January 8, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The amendment modifies the 

Seabrook Technical Specifications 

(TSs). Specifically, the amendment 

revises TS 6.8.1.6.b, ‘‘Core Operating 

Limits Report,’’ by adding AREVA 

Licensing Report ANP–3243P, 

‘‘Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Fixed Incore 

Detector System Analysis Supplement 

to YAEC–1855PA,’’ which supplements 

and modifies the previously approved 

methodology in YAEC–18855PA, 

‘‘Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Fixed Incore 

Detector System Analysis,’’ October 

1992. The amendment also modifies the 

surveillance requirements associated 

with the heat flux hot channel factor 

and nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel 

factor to include revised uncertainty 

values when measurement is obtained 

using the fixed incore detector system. 

Date of issuance: February 4, 2015. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 143. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14363A275; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

86: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 4, 2014 (79 FR 

6649). The supplemental letters dated 

March 12, 2014, June 12, 2014, 

December 11, 2014, and January 8, 2015, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 4, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

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: July 3, 

2014. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 8365 

Brief description of amendment: The 

license amendment addresses changes 

related to the design details of the 

containment internal structural wall 

modules (CA01, CA02, and CA05). 

The amendment changes Tier 2 and 

Tier 2 * information in the VEGP 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR), and the involved plantspecific Tier 1 and corresponding 

combined license Appendix C 

information to allow the use of thicker 

than normal faceplates to accommodate 

local demand or connection loads in 

certain areas without the use of overlay 

plates or additional backup structures. 

Additional changes to the VEGP UFSAR 

and combined license Appendix C were 

approved to add clarity and consistency 

to the licensing basis. Associated 

Exemptions were also issued with the 

amendment. 

Date of issuance: January 13, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 29. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15005A210; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45480). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 13, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South 

Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, 

Matagorda County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: May 8, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments approved the revised 

schedule for implementation of the 

cyber security plan (CSP), and revised 

paragraph 2.F of Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80 for 

STP, Units 1 and 2, respectively, to 

incorporate the revised CSP 

implementation schedule. The CSP and 

associated implementation schedule for 

STP, Units 1 and 2 were previously 

approved by the NRC staff by letter 

dated July 26, 2011. 

Date of issuance: January 29, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—202; Unit 

2—190. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14281A065; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

76 and NPF–80: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 9, 2014 (79 FR 

53461). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: July 19, 

2012, as supplemented by letters dated 

March 1, 2013; April 29, 2013; April 30, 

2013; June 13, 2013; October 21, 2013; 

December 18, 2013; January 31, 2014; 

April 2, 2014; September 30, 2014; and 

December 5, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modifies the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report hydrologic 

analysis and results, including the 

design basis flood elevations required to 

be considered in the flood protection of 

safety-related systems, structures, or 

components during external flooding 

events, and verifies the adequacy of the 

warning time for both rainfall and 

seismically induced dam failure floods. 

Date of issuance: January 28, 2015. 

Effective date: The amendment shall 

be implemented by May 30, 2015, after 

the commitments are completed as 

stated in Enclosure 9 of the supplement 

dated September 30, 2014. 

Amendment No.: 98. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15005A314; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 13, 2012 (77 FRN 

67686). The supplemental letters 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated January 28, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

determination comments received: No. 

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses and Final 

Determination of No Significant 

Hazards Consideration and 

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent 

Public Announcement or Emergency 

Circumstances) 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application for the 

amendment complies with the 

standards and requirements of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations. The Commission has 

made appropriate findings as required 

by the Act and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, 

which are set forth in the license 

amendment. 

Because of exigent or emergency 

circumstances associated with the date 

the amendment was needed, there was 

not time for the Commission to publish, 

for public comment before issuance, its 

usual notice of consideration of 

issuance of amendment, proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination, and opportunity for a 

hearing. 

For exigent circumstances, the 

Commission has either issued a Federal 

Register notice providing opportunity 

for public comment or has used local 

media to provide notice to the public in 

the area surrounding a licensee’s facility 

of the licensee’s application and of the 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

The Commission has applied the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made 

a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The basis for this 

determination is contained in the 

documents related to this action. 

Accordingly, the amendments have 

been issued and made effective as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the application for 

amendment, (2) the amendment to 

Facility Operating License or Combined 

License, as applicable, and (3) the 

Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment, as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

The Commission is also offering an 

opportunity for a hearing with respect to 

the issuance of the amendment. Within 

60 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, any person(s) whose interest 

may be affected by this action may file 

a request for a hearing and a petition to 

intervene with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license or combined license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

person(s) should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 

the NRC’s PDR, located at One White 

Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, and electronically on 

the Internet at the NRC’s Web site, 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If there are problems in 

accessing the document, contact the 

PDR’s Reference staff at 1–800–397– 

4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. If a request for a 

hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

is filed by the above date, 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 identify 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 petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

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 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. Since the Commission has 

made a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, if a hearing is 

requested, it will not stay the 

effectiveness of the amendment. Any 

hearing held would take place while the 

amendment is in effect. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 8367 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass 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, 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. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of amendment request: January 

30, 2015. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment makes a one-time 

revision to Technical Specification (TS) 

3.5.1, ‘‘ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling 

System]—Operating,’’ TS 3.6.1.5, 

‘‘Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Drywell 

Spray,’’ and TS 3.6.2.3, ‘‘Residual Heat 

Removal (RHR) Suppression Pool 

Cooling,’’ to extend the Completion 

Time (CT) of Required Actions 

specifically associated with RHR System 

B inoperability from 7 days to 14 days. 

This extension will allow completion of 

a system modification, required testing, 

and system restoration. This 

amendment was necessitated by 

emergent issues that have delayed 

completion of activities to modify the 

24-inch Division 2 (Loop B) RHR 

suction piping. 

Date of issuance: February 1, 2015. 

Effective date: As of its day of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

immediately. 

Amendment No.: 230. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15030A501; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

21: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): No. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of emergency 

circumstances, state consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated February 1, 

2015. 

Attorney for licensee: William A. 

Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20006– 

3817. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. 

Oesterle. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of February 2015. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 17, 2015 / Notices 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03162 Filed 2–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0001] 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

DATE: February 16, 23, March 2, 9, 16, 

23, 2015. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of February 16, 2015 

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 

9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public 

Meeting) (Tentative) 

a. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Units 2 And 3)—Petitions for 

Review of LBP–13–13 and 

Associated Board Decision on 

Contention NYS–12C (Tentative). 

b. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Units 2 And 3)—Petitions for 

Review of LBP–11–17 and LBP–10– 

13 on Contention NYS–35/36 

(Tentative). 

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on NRC 

International Activities (Closed— 

Ex.9) 

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 

1:30 p.m. Briefing on Project Aim 2020 

(Public Meeting); (Contact: Karen 

Fitch, 301–287–9237) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. 

Week of February 23, 2015—Tentative 

Thursday, February 26, 2015 

2:00 p.m. Briefing on NRC 

International Activities (Closed— 

Ex. 1 & 9) 

Week of March 2, 2015—Tentative 

Thursday, March 5, 2015 

10:00 a.m. Meeting with Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(Public Meeting); (Contact: Edwin 

Hackett, 301–415–7360) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. 

Week of March 9, 2015—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of March 9, 2015. 

Week of March 16, 2015—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of March 16, 2015. 

Week of March 23, 2015—Tentative 

Thursday, March 26, 2015 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1) 

Thursday, March 26, 2015 

1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1) 

Friday, March 27, 2015 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat 

Environment Assessment (Closed— 

Ex. 1) 

* * * * * 

The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. For more information or to verify 

the status of meetings, contact Glenn 

Ellmers at 301–415–0442 or via email at 

Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g., 

braille, large print), please notify 

Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability 

Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, by 

videophone at 240–428–3217, or by 

email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@

nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodation will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

Members of the public may request to 

receive this information electronically. 

If you would like to be added to the 

distribution, please contact the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– 

415–1969), or email 

Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or 

Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov. 

Dated: February 12, 2015. 

Glenn Ellmers, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03251 Filed 2–12–15; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

Notice of March 11, 2015 Public 

Hearing 

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

March 11, 2015. 

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, 

Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 

York Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 

STATUS: Hearing OPEN to the Public at 

2:00 p.m. 

PURPOSE: Public Hearing in conjunction 

with each meeting of OPIC’s Board of 

Directors, to afford an opportunity for 

any person to present views regarding 

the activities of the Corporation. 

PROCEDURES: Individuals wishing to 

address the hearing orally must provide 

advance notice to OPIC’s Corporate 

Secretary no later than 5 p.m. Thursday, 

March 5, 2015. The notice must include 

the individual’s name, title, 

organization, address, and telephone 

number, and a concise summary of the 

subject matter to be presented. 

Oral presentations may not exceed ten 

(10) minutes. The time for individual 

presentations may be reduced 

proportionately, if necessary, to afford 

all participants who have submitted a 

timely request an opportunity to be 

heard. 

Participants wishing to submit a 

written statement for the record must 

submit a copy of such statement to 

OPIC’s Corporate Secretary no later than 

5 p.m. Thursday, March 5, 2015. Such 

statement must be typewritten, double 

spaced, and may not exceed twenty-five 

(25) pages. 

Upon receipt of the required notice, 

OPIC will prepare an agenda, which 

will be available at the hearing, that 

identifies speakers, the subject on which 

each participant will speak, and the 

time allotted for each presentation. 

A written summary of the hearing will 

be compiled, and such summary will be 

made available, upon written request to 

OPIC’s Corporate Secretary, at the cost 

of reproduction. 

The March 19, 2015 Board meeting 

agenda is anticipated to include a report 

from the President and CEO, the 

approval of the minutes of the December 

2014 Board meeting, and the approval of 

various management reports. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: 

Information on the hearing may be 

obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 

336–8438, via facsimile at (202) 408– 

0297, or via email at Connie.Downs@

opic.gov. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES