Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [NRC-2015-0029]

# 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                                ( print page 8356)                              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 publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
    -  Federal Rulemaking Web Site:                      Go to                      http://www.regulations.gov                      and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0029.                
    -  NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):                      You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at                      http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html.                      To begin the search, select “                     ADAMS Public Documents                     ” and then select “                     Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.                     ” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to                      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/​doc-collections/​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                           ( print page 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 NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.                

                    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals/​getting-started.html.*                     System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html.*                     Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.                

                    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html.*

                    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html.*                     A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.                

                    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html,*                     by email to                     *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov,*                     or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.                

                    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to                           ( print page 8358)                        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                               ( print page 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                               ( print page 8360)                            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?                              ( print page 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 publicly-available 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 nonsafety-related air supply line to the (main) generator                               ( print page 8362)                            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 nonsafety-related 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 nonsafety-related 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 risk-informed 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 on-shift staffing and Emergency Response Organization staffing.                

*Date of Issuance:*                     February 4, 2015.                          ( print page 8363)    

*Effective date:*                     As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 60 days.                

*Amendment No.:*                     261. A publicly-available 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 publicly-available 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                           ( print page 8364)                        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 publicly-available 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.                          ( print page 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 plant-specific 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 publicly-available 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 publicly-available 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                           ( print page 8366)                        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/​doc-collections/​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 E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

                    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at                     *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 NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the                           ( print page 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 E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html.*                     Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.                

                    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html.*

                    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html.*                     A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.                

                    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html,*                     by email to                     *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov,*                     or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.                

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

                    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at                     *http://ehd1.nrc.gov/​ehd/​,*                     unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, 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 publicly-available 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.
      ( print page 8368)    
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