13902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

under part 110. The NRC Form 7 

application will be reviewed by the NRC 

and by the Executive Branch, and if 

applicable statutory, regulatory, and 

policy considerations are satisfied, the 

NRC will issue an export, import, 

amendment or renewal license. 

III. Specific Requests for Comments 

Submit, by May 18, 2015, comments 

that address the following questions: 

1. Is the proposed collection of 

information necessary for the NRC to 

properly perform its functions? Does the 

information have practical utility? 

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the 

information collection accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

information collection on respondents 

be minimized, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of March 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tremaine Donnell, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06014 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0001] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

DATES: March 16, 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, 

2015. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of March 16, 2015 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of March 16, 2015. 

Week of March 23, 2015—Tentative 

Thursday, March 26, 2015 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1) 

1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1) 

Friday, March 27, 2015 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat 

Environment Assessment (Closed– 

Ex. 1) 

Week of March 30, 2015—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of March 30, 2015. 

Week of April 6, 2015—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of April 6, 2015. 

Week of April 13, 2015—Tentative 

Tuesday, April 14, 2015 

9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory 

Committee on the Medical Uses of 

Isotopes (Public Meeting) (Contact: 

Nima Ashkeboussi, 301–415–5775) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. 

Thursday, April 16, 2015 

9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization 

of Agreement States and the 

Conference of Radiation Control 

Program Directors (Public Meeting) 

(Contact: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301– 

415–5775) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. 

Week of April 20, 2015—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of April 20, 2015. 

* * * * * 

The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. For more information or to verify 

the status of meetings, contact Glenn 

Ellmers at 301–415–0442 or via email at 

Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov. 

* * * * * 

Additional Information 

1. By a vote of 3–0 on March 9, 2015, 

the Commission determined pursuant to 

U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the 

Commission’s rules that an Affirmation 

Session for Entergy Nuclear Operations, 

Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Units 2 and 3)—Petitions for Review of 

LBP–13–13 (Partial Initial Decision) and 

Related Decisions (Appeals of Board 

Decisions Related to Contentions NUS– 

8 CW–EC–3) be held with less than one 

week notice to the public. The meeting 

was held on March 9, 2015. 

2. The Affirmation Session for Omaha 

Public Power District (Fort Calhoun 

Station, Unit 1), Petition to Intervene 

and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing 

by Sierra Club (Apr. 23, 2014), 

previously scheduled for March 5, 2015, 

was held on March 9, 2015. 

3. The meeting with the Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 

scheduled for March 5, 2015, was 

postponed. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

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

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify 

Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability 

Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, by 

videophone at 240–428–3217, or by 

email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@

nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodation will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

Members of the public may request to 

receive this information electronically. 

If you would like to be added to the 

distribution, please contact the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– 

415–1969), or email 

Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or 

Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov. 

Dated: March 13, 2015. 

Glenn Ellmers, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06188 Filed 3–13–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01––P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0055] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses 

Involving No Significant Hazards 

Considerations 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Biweekly notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 189a. (2) 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

publishing this regular biweekly notice. 

The Act requires the Commission to 

publish notice of any amendments 

issued, or proposed to be issued and 

grants the Commission the authority to 

issue and make immediately effective 

any amendment to an operating license 

or combined license, as applicable, 

upon a determination by the 

Commission that such amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, notwithstanding the 

pendency before the Commission of a 

request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from February 19, 

2015 to March 4, 2015. The last 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13903 

biweekly notice was published on 

March 3, 2015. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by April 

16, 2015. A request for a hearing must 

be filed by May 18, 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–2015–0055. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Beverly A. Clayton, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– 

0055 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0055. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

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

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– 

0055, facility name, unit number(s), 

application date, and subject in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http:// 

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

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

by the above date, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

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 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 EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13905 

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. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., 

Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River, Unit 

3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR–3), 

Citrus County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

November 7, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14321A450. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would reflect the 

transfer of ownership, held by eight 

minority co-owners, in CR–3 to DEF. 

The transfer of ownership will take 

place pursuant to the Settlement, 

Release and Acquisition Agreement, 

dated September 26, 2014, wherein DEF 

will purchase the 6.52 percent 

combined ownership share in CR–3 

held by these minority co-owners, 

leaving DEF and Seminole Electric 

Cooperative, Inc., as the remaining 

licensees for CR–3. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated because no 

accident initiators or assumptions are 

affected. The proposed license transfers are 

administrative in nature and have no direct 

effect on any plant system, plant personnel 

qualifications, or the operation and 

maintenance of CR–3. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated 

because no new accident initiators or 

assumptions are introduced by the proposed 

changes. The proposed license transfers are 

administrative in nature and have no direct 

effect on any plant system, plant personnel 

qualifications, or operation and maintenance 

of CR–3. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety 

because the proposed changes do not involve 

changes to the initial conditions contributing 

to accident severity or consequences, or 

reduce response or mitigation capabilities. 

The proposed license transfers are 

administrative in nature and have no direct 

effect on any plant system, plant personnel 

qualifications, or operation and maintenance 

of CR–3. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 

550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC 

28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

December 9, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14353A015. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specification 5.5.14, ‘‘Containment 

Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ to 

extend the frequency of the 

Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test 

or Type A Test from once every 10 years 

to once every 15 years on a permanent 

basis. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment involves 

changes to the IP2 [Indian Point Unit No. 2] 

containment leakage rate testing program. 

The proposed amendment does not involve 

a physical change to the plant or a change in 

the manner in which the plant is operated or 

controlled. The primary containment 

function is to provide an essentially leak 

tight barrier against the uncontrolled release 

of radioactivity to the environment for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

postulated accidents. As such, the 

containment itself and the testing 

requirements to periodically demonstrate the 

integrity of the containment exist to ensure 

the plant’s ability to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident do not involve 

any accident precursors or initiators. 

Therefore, the probability of occurrence of 

an accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased by the proposed 

amendment. 

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC 

accepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision 

2A, for development of the IP2 performancebased testing program for the Type A testing. 

Implementation of these guidelines continues 

to provide adequate assurance that during 

design basis accidents, the primary 

containment and its components would limit 

leakage rates to less than the values assumed 

in the plant safety analyses. The potential 

consequences of extending the ILRT 

[integrated leak rate test] interval to 15 years 

have been evaluated by analyzing the 

resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk 

in terms of person-rem per year within 50 

miles resulting from design basis accidents 

was estimated to be acceptably small and 

determined to be within the guidelines 

published in RG 1.174. Additionally, the 

proposed change maintains defense-in-depth 

by preserving a reasonable balance among 

prevention of core damage, prevention of 

containment failure, and consequence 

mitigation. Entergy has determined that the 

increase in conditional containment failure 

probability due to the proposed change 

would be very small. Therefore, it is 

concluded that the proposed amendment 

does not significantly increase the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision 

2A, for the development of the IP2 

performance-based leakage testing program, 

and establishes a 15-year interval for the 

performance of the containment ILRT. The 

containment and the testing requirements to 

periodically demonstrate the integrity of the 

containment exist to ensure the plant’s 

ability to mitigate the consequences of an 

accident do not involve any accident 

precursors or initiators. 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 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 amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision 

2A, for the development of the IP2 

performance-based leakage testing program, 

and establishes a 15-year interval for the 

performance of the containment ILRT. This 

amendment 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 containment leakage 

rate testing program, as defined in the TS 

[technical specifications], ensure that the 

degree of primary containment structural 

integrity and leak-tightness that is considered 

in the plant’s safety analysis is maintained. 

The overall containment leakage rate limit 

specified by the TS is maintained, and the 

Type A containment leakage tests would be 

performed at the frequencies established in 

accordance with the NRC-accepted 

guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision 2A with no 

change to the 60 month frequencies of Type 

B, and Type C tests. 

Containment inspections performed in 

accordance with other plant programs serve 

to provide a high degree of assurance that the 

containment would not degrade in a manner 

that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk 

assessment using the current IP2 PSA 

[probabilistic safety assessment] model 

concluded that extending the ILRT test 

interval from ten years to 15 years results in 

a very small change to the risk profile. 

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., 440 Hamilton 

Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

November 19, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14329A353. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the Nine Mile Point (NMP) 

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical 

Specifications (TS) by relocating 

specific surveillance frequencies to a 

licensee-controlled program with the 

adoption of Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF)–425, Revision 3, 

‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 

Licensee Control—Risk Informed 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(RITSTF) Initiative 5b.’’ The licensee’s 

application dated November 19, 2014, 

Attachment 1, section 2.2, has identified 

some variations or deviations from the 

TSTF–425. Additionally, the change 

would add a new program, the 

Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program, to TS section 5, 

Administrative Controls. The NRC staff 

issued a notice of opportunity for 

comment in the Federal Register on 

December 5, 2008, 73 FR 74202, on 

possible amendments to revise the plant 

specific TS, to Relocate Surveillance 

Frequencies to Licensee Control— 

RITSTF Initiative 5b. The Notice 

included a model safety evaluation and 

model No Significant Hazards 

Consideration (NSHC) determination, 

using the consolidated line-item 

improvement process. The NRC staff 

subsequently issued a notice of 

availability of the models for referencing 

in license amendment applications in 

the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 

FR 31996). The licensee affirmed the 

applicability of the model NSHC 

determination in its application dated 

November 19, 2014, which is presented 

below. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes relocate the 

specified frequencies for periodic 

surveillance requirements to licensee control 

under a new Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program (SFCP). Surveillance frequencies are 

not an initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The systems and 

components required by the technical 

specifications for which the surveillance 

frequencies are relocated are still required to 

be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for 

the surveillance requirements, and be 

capable of performing any mitigation 

function assumed in the accident analysis. 

As a result, the consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

increased. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents result from 

utilizing the proposed changes. The changes 

do not involve a physical alteration of the 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13907 

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. In addition, the changes do not 

impose any new or different requirements. 

The changes do not alter assumptions made 

in the safety analysis. The proposed changes 

are consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions and current plant operating 

practice. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The design, operation, testing methods, 

and acceptance criteria for systems, 

structures, and components (SSCs), specified 

in applicable codes and standards (or 

alternatives approved for use by the NRC) 

will continue to be met as described in the 

plant licensing basis (including the final 

safety analysis report and bases to TS), since 

these are not affected by changes to the 

surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is 

no impact to safety analysis acceptance 

criteria as described in plant licensing basis. 

To evaluate a change in the relocated 

surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform 

a probabilistic risk evaluation using the 

guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 

04–10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS 

SFCP. NEI 04–10, Rev. 1, methodology 

provides reasonable acceptance guidelines 

and methods for evaluating the risk increase 

of proposed changes to surveillance 

frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 

1.177. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Senior Vice President, 

Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General 

Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, 

LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, 

IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

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 request: 

December 18, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14352A204. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

increase the voltage limit for the diesel 

generator (DG) full load rejection test 

specified by technical specification (TS) 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10. 

Additionally, the proposed amendment 

would add Note 3 to TS SR 3.8.1.10 for 

alignment with the Standard Technical 

Specifications documented in NUREG– 

1431, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML12100A222). 

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: 

EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has 

evaluated the proposed change for 

Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using 

the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has 

determined that the proposed change does 

not involve a significant hazards 

consideration. The following information is 

provided to support a finding of no 

significant hazards consideration. 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The DGs design function is to mitigate an 

accident and there are no analyzed scenarios 

where the DGs are initiators of any 

previously evaluated accident. Since DGs do 

not initiate accidents, this change does not 

increase the probability of occurrence of a 

previously evaluated accident. The proposed 

change to the testing approach of the DGs is 

consistent with the original design of the 

DGs. The proposed change is in accordance 

with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.9 Revision 3, 

and this change to the testing approach does 

not impact the DGs ability to mitigate 

accidents. The DGs will continue to operate 

within the parameters and conditions 

assumed within the accident analysis. This 

change does not result in an increase in the 

likelihood of malfunction of the DGs or their 

supported equipment. Since the DGs will 

continue to perform its required function, 

there is no increase in the consequences of 

previously evaluated accidents. 

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 amendment does not change 

the DGs operation or ability to perform its 

design function. The proposed change to TS 

SR 3.8.1.10 at increased voltage will ensure 

the DGs ability to perform at rated power 

factor while meeting its requirements. The 

change to TS SR 3.8.1.10 does not result in 

DG operation that would create a new failure 

mode of the DGs that could create a new 

initiator of an accident. This is because the 

DGs ability to perform its design function is 

maintained in the same manner as originally 

designed. The proposed change does not 

change the single failure capabilities of the 

electrical power system or create a potential 

for loss of power since the design operation 

of the DGs is maintained. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The margin of safety is established through 

the design of the plant structures, systems, 

and components, the parameters within 

which the plant is operated, and the 

setpoints for the actuation of equipment 

relied upon to respond to an event. The 

proposed change does not modify the safety 

limits or setpoints at which protective 

actions are initiated. The proposed change 

increases the voltage limit for the DG full 

load rejection test which results in new test 

acceptance criterion that is more restrictive 

than the existing acceptance criteria. The 

proposed change ensures the availability and 

operability of safety-related DGs. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Based on the above evaluation, EGC 

concludes that the proposed amendment 

presents no significant hazards consideration 

under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 

50.92, paragraph (c), and accordingly, a 

finding of no significant hazards 

consideration is justified. 

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 

requested amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1, 

Perry, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: 

November 24, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14328A665. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment is intended to 

revise the battery capacity testing 

surveillance requirements in the 

technical specifications to reflect test 

requirements when the battery is near 

end of life. 

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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not change 

the design function of the Class 1 E 

divisional battery systems and does not 

change the way the plant is maintained or 

operated when performing battery 

surveillance testing. The proposed 

amendment does not affect any accident 

mitigating feature or increase the likelihood 

of malfunction for plant structures, systems 

and components. 

The proposed amendment does not affect 

the operability requirements of the Class 1 E 

divisional battery systems. Verification of 

operating the plant within prescribed limits 

will continue to be performed, as currently 

required. Compliance with and continued 

verification of the prescribed limits support 

the capability of the Class 1 E divisional 

battery systems to perform their required 

design functions during all plant operating, 

accident, and station blackout conditions, 

consistent with the plant safety analyses. 

The proposed amendment will not change 

any of the analyses associated with the PNPP 

Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15 

accidents because plant operation, plant 

structures, systems, components, accident 

initiators, and accident mitigation functions 

remain unchanged. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not change 

the design function of the Class 1 E 

divisional battery systems, and does not 

change the way the plant is operated or 

maintained. The proposed amendment does 

not create a credible failure mechanism, 

malfunction or accident initiator not already 

considered in the design and licensing basis. 

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. 

Safety margins are applied to design and 

licensing basis functions and to the 

controlling values of parameters to account 

for various uncertainties and to avoid 

exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The 

proposed amendment does not involve a 

physical change to the plant, does not change 

methods of plant operation within prescribed 

limits, or affect design and licensing basis 

functions or controlling values of parameters 

for plant systems, structures, and 

components. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David W. 

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76 

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: August 7, 

2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14225A630). 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Technical Specifications to add a short 

Allowed Outage Time to restore an 

inoperable system for conditions under 

which the existing specifications require 

a plant shutdown. The proposed 

amendment is consistent with an NRCapproved change identified as Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–426, Revision 5, ‘‘Revise 

or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into 

LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] 

3.0.3—RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] 

Initiatives 6b & 6c’’ (see 78 FR 32476, 

May 30, 2013). The Allowed Outage 

Time would be added to specifications 

governing the boron injection flow paths 

of the reactivity control systems, 

pressurizer heaters, containment spray 

trains, shield building ventilation 

systems, and control room emergency 

air cleanup systems. 

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 reproduced 

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 provides a short 

Allowed Outage Time to restore an 

inoperable system for conditions under 

which the existing Technical Specifications 

require a plant shutdown to begin within one 

hour in accordance with Limiting Condition 

for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3. Entering into 

Technical Specification Actions is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The consequences of 

any accident previously evaluated that may 

occur during the proposed Allowed Outage 

Times are no different from the consequences 

of the same accident during the existing onehour allowance. As a result, the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents [would] 

result from utilizing the proposed change. 

The changes [to the TSs] do not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new 

or different type of equipment will be 

installed) or a change in the methods 

governing normal plant operation. In 

addition, the changes do not impose any new 

or different requirements. The changes do not 

alter assumptions made in [any] safety 

analysis. 

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 increases the time 

the plant may operate without the ability to 

perform an assumed safety function. The 

analyses in [the NRC-approved topical 

report] WCAP–16125–NP–A, ‘‘Justification 

for Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected 

Technical Specifications for Conditions 

Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,’’ 

Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that 

there is an acceptably small increase in risk 

due to a limited period of continued 

operation in these conditions and that this 

risk is balanced by avoiding the risks 

associated with a plant shutdown. As a 

result, the change to the margin of safety 

provided by requiring a plant shutdown 

within one hour is not significant. 

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 determines that 

the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) 

are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the proposed 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light Company, 700 

Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

December 5, 2014 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14353A016). 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment will modify 

the Technical Specification (TS) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13909 

requirements related to Completion 

Times for Required Actions to provide 

the option to calculate longer, riskinformed Completion Times. The 

proposed amendment will also add a 

new program, the Risk Informed 

Completion Time Program, to TS 

section 6.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls.’’ 

The methodology for using the Risk 

Informed Completion Time Program is 

described in Nuclear Energy Institute 

topical report NEI 06–09, ‘‘RiskInformed Technical Specifications 

Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical 

Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines,’’ 

Revision 0–A, which was approved by 

the NRC on May 17, 2007. The proposed 

amendment is consistent with the NRCapproved industry-proposed Technical 

Specification Task Force–505, Revision 

1, ‘‘Provide Risk-Informed Extended 

Completion Times—RITSTF Initiative 

4b.’’ 

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 reproduced 

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 permits the 

extension of Completion Times provided the 

associated risk is assessed and managed in 

accordance with the NRC[-]approved Risk 

Informed Completion Time Program. The 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated because the 

change involves no change to the plant or its 

modes of operation. The proposed change 

does not increase the consequences of an 

accident because the design-basis mitigation 

function of the affected systems is not 

changed and the consequences of an accident 

[occurring] during the extended Completion 

Time are no different from those [occurring] 

during the existing Completion Time. 

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 does not change the 

design, configuration, or method of operation 

of the plant. The proposed change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no 

new or different kind of equipment will be 

installed). 

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 permits the 

extension of Completion Times provided risk 

is assessed and managed in accordance with 

the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed 

Completion Time Program. The proposed 

change implements a risk-informed 

configuration management program to assure 

that adequate margins of safety are 

maintained. Application of these new 

specifications and the configuration 

management program considers cumulative 

effects of multiple systems or components 

being out of service and does so more 

effectively than the current TS. 

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 determines that 

the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) 

are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the proposed 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light Company, 700 

Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald 

C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: 

December 17, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14356A022. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would amend 

the Appendix A technical specifications 

to Facility Operating Licenses DPR–58 

and DPR–74, to modify the notes to TS 

3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’ to 

allow surveillance testing of the onsite 

standby emergency diesel generators 

(DGs) during modes in which it is 

currently prohibited. Specifically, the 

license amendment request proposes 

removing the mode restrictions for the 

following Surveillance Requirements 

(SRs): 3.8.1.10 (DG single largest load 

rejection test), 3.8.1.11 (DG full load 

rejection test), and 3.8.1.15 (DG 

endurance run). 

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 of 

occurrence or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The design of plant equipment is not being 

modified by the proposed changes. In 

addition, the DGs and their associated 

emergency loads are accident mitigating 

features. As such, testing of the DGs 

themselves is not associated with any 

potential accident-initiating mechanism. 

Therefore, there will be no significant 

impact on any accident probabilities by the 

approval of the requested changes. 

The changes include an increase in the 

time that a DG under test will be paralleled 

to the grid while the unit is in Modes 1 or 

2. As such, the ability of the tested DG to 

respond to a DBA [design-basis accident] 

could be minimally adversely impacted by 

the proposed changes. However, the impacts 

are not considered significant based, in part, 

on the ability of the remaining DG to mitigate 

a DBA or provide safe shutdown. Experience 

shows that testing for these SRs typically 

does not perturb the electrical distribution 

system. In addition, operating experience 

supports the conclusion that the proposed 

changes do not involve any significant 

increases in the likelihood of a safety-related 

bus blackout or damage to plant loads. 

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 capability to synchronize a DG to the 

offsite source (via the associated plant bus) 

and test the DG in such a configuration is a 

design feature of the DGs, including the test 

mode override in response to a safety 

injection signal. Paralleling the DG for longer 

periods of time during plant operation may 

slightly increase the probability of incurring 

an adverse effect from the offsite source, but 

this increase in probability is judged to be 

still quite small and such a possibility is not 

a new or previously unrecognized 

consideration. 

The proposed change does not introduce a 

new mode of plant operation and does not 

involve physical modification to the plant. 

The change does not introduce new accident 

initiators or impact 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 previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not exceed or 

alter a design basis or safety limit, so there 

is no significant reduction in the margin of 

safety. The margin of safety is related to the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to perform their design 

functions during and following an accident 

situation. These barriers include the fuel 

cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the 

containment system. The proposed changes 

do not directly affect these barriers, nor do 

they involve any significantly adverse impact 

on the DGs which serve to support these 

barriers in the event of an accident 

concurrent with a LOOP [loss of offsight 

power]. The proposed changes to the testing 

requirements for the plant DGs do not affect 

the OPERABILITY requirements for the DGs, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13910 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

as verification of such OPERABILITY will 

continue to be performed as required (except 

during different allowed modes). The 

changes have an insignificant impact on DG 

availability, as the DGs remain available to 

perform their required function of providing 

emergency power to plant equipment that 

supports or constitutes the fission product 

barriers. Only one DG is to be tested at a 

time, so that the remaining DG will be 

available to safety shut down the plant if 

required. Consequently, performance of the 

fission product barriers will not be impacted 

by implementation of the proposed 

amendment. 

In addition, the proposed changes involve 

no changes to setpoints or limits established 

or assumed by the accident analysis. 

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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Robert B. 

Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One 

Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: January 

15, 2015. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15021A127. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

add a limiting condition for operation, 

applicability, required actions, 

completion times, and surveillance 

requirements for the residual heat 

removal (RHR) containment spray 

system consistent with the guidance in 

NUREG–1433, Revision 4, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specifications General 

Electric BWR [Boiling Water Reactor]/4 

Plants,’’ dated April 2012 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12104A192). New TS 

section 3.6.1.9, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal 

(RHR) Containment Spray,’’ would be 

added to reflect the reliance on 

containment spray to maintain the 

drywell within design temperature 

limits during a small steam line break. 

In addition, the ‘‘Drywell Pressure— 

High’’ function that serves as an 

interlock permissive to allow RHR 

containment spray mode alignment 

would be relocated from the Technical 

Requirements Manual (TRM) to TS 

3.3.5.1, ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling 

System (ECCS) Instrumentation.’’ 

The requirements for the RHR 

containment spray function and 

‘‘Drywell Pressure—High’’ function are 

currently contained in TRM sections 

T3.6.1, ‘‘RHR Containment Spray,’’ and 

T3.3.2, ‘‘ECCS and Reactor Core 

Isolation Cooling Instrumentation,’’ 

respectively. These TRM sections 

established specific guidance and 

criteria related to the applicability, 

operation, and testing for the RHR 

containment spray system. The TRM 

requirements for the RHR containment 

spray system would be removed once 

the TS requirements are approved. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to establish the RHR 

Containment Spray requirement in TS does 

not introduce new equipment or new 

equipment operating modes, nor do the 

proposed changes alter existing system 

relationships. The proposed change does not 

affect plant operation, design function, or any 

analysis that verifies the capability of a 

structure, system, or component (SSC) to 

perform a design function. There are no 

changes or modifications to the RHR system. 

The RHR system will continue to function as 

designed in all modes of operation, including 

the Containment Spray function. There are 

no significant changes to procedures or 

training related to the operation of the 

Containment Spray function. Primary 

containment integrity is not adversely 

impacted and radiological consequences 

from the accidents analyzed in the Updated 

Safety Analysis Report (USAR) are not 

increased. Containment parameters are not 

increased beyond those previously evaluated 

and the potential for failure of the 

containment is not increased. 

There is no adverse impact on systems 

designed to mitigate the consequences of 

accidents. The proposed change does not 

increase system or component pressures, 

temperatures, and flowrates for systems 

designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the 

consequences of an accident. Since these 

conditions do not change, the likelihood of 

failure of SSC is not increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to establish the RHR 

Containment Spray requirement in TS does 

not alter the design function or operation of 

any SSC. The Containment system will 

continue to function as designed in all modes 

of operation, including RHR Containment 

Spray function. There is no new system 

component being installed, no new 

construction, and no performance of a new 

test or maintenance function. The proposed 

TS change does not create the possibility of 

a new credible failure mechanism or 

malfunction. The proposed change does not 

modify the design function or operation of 

any SSC. The proposed change does not 

introduce new accident initiators. Primary 

containment integrity is not adversely 

impacted and radiological consequences 

from the accident analyzed in the USAR are 

not increased. Containment parameters are 

not increased beyond those previously 

evaluated and the potential for failure of the 

containment is not increased. The proposed 

change does not increase system or 

component pressures, temperatures, and 

flowrates for systems designed to prevent 

accidents or mitigate the consequences of an 

accident. Since these conditions do not 

change, the likelihood of failure of an SSC is 

not increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not increase 

system or component pressures, 

temperatures, and flowrates for systems 

designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the 

consequences of an accident. Containment 

parameters are not increased beyond those 

previously evaluated and the potential for 

failure of the containment is not increased. 

The proposed change to establish the RHR 

Containment Spray requirement in TS is 

needed in order to reflect the current safety 

function of Containment Spray related to the 

small steam line break accident. The 

proposed change does not exceed or alter a 

design basis or a safety limit parameter that 

is described in the USAR. 

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: Mr. John C. 

McClure, Nebraska Public Power 

District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, 

NE 68602–0499. 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: Eric R. 

Oesterle. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: February 

20, 2013, as supplemented by letters 

dated June 25, 2013; September 15, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13911 

2014; and February 26, 2015. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML13053A199, 

ML13178A024, ML14258A089, and 

ML15057A480, respectively. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendments 

would remove the technical 

specification (TS) 3.5.3 ‘‘ECCS 

[Emergency Core Cooling System]- 

Shutdown,’’ Limiting Condition for 

Operation (LCO) Note 1 to eliminate 

information to the plant operators that 

could cause non-conservative operation, 

and would revise the LCO Applicability 

statement to apply to all of Mode 4. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which the Commission 

previously issued in the Federal 

Register on August 20, 2013 (78 FR 

51229). The licensee revised its analysis 

of the issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below, to consider expansion of the 

scope of the amendments by revising 

the LCO Applicability statement to 

include all of Mode 4. 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request proposes 

to revise the Technical Specification for 

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by 

removing the LCO Note which allows the 

RHR [residual heat removal] subsystem to be 

considered operable for ECCS when aligned 

for shutdown cooling and revising the 

Applicability statement to include all of 

Mode 4. These changes will require one train 

of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation 

throughout Mode 4. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

ECCS and RHR subsystem design, the 

interfaces between the RHR subsystem and 

other plant systems’ operating functions, or 

the reliability of the RHR subsystem. The 

proposed changes do not change or impact 

the initiators and assumptions of the 

analyzed accidents. Therefore, the ECCS and 

RHR subsystems will be capable of 

performing their accident mitigation 

functions, and the proposed TS changes do 

not involve an increase in the probability of 

an accident. 

The proposed TS changes will require that 

one train of RHR is aligned for ECCS 

operation during Mode 4 which assures that 

one train of ECCS is operable to mitigate the 

consequences of a loss of coolant accident. 

Thus the proposed TS changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

consequences of an accident. 

Therefore, the proposed Technical 

Specification changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request proposes 

to revise the Technical Specification for 

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by 

removing the LCO Note which allows the 

RHR subsystem to be considered operable for 

ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling 

and revising the Applicability statement to 

include all of Mode 4. These changes will 

require one train of RHR to be aligned for 

ECCS operation throughout Mode 4. 

The proposed Technical Specification 

changes involve changes to when system 

trains are operated, but they do not change 

any system functions or maintenance 

activities. The changes do not involve 

physical alteration of the plant, that is, no 

new or different type of equipment will be 

installed. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analyses but 

ensure that one train of ECCS is operable to 

mitigate the consequences of a loss of coolant 

accident. These changes do not create new 

failure modes or mechanisms which are not 

identifiable during testing and no new 

accident precursors are generated. 

Therefore, the proposed Technical 

Specification changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request proposes 

to revise the Technical Specification [TS] for 

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by 

removing the LCO Note which allows the 

RHR subsystem to be considered operable for 

ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling 

and revising the Applicability statement to 

include all of Mode 4. These changes will 

require one train of RHR to be aligned for 

ECCS operation throughout Mode 4. 

This license amendment proposes 

Technical Specification changes which 

assure that the ECCS—Shutdown TS LCO 

requirements are met if a Mode 4 LOCA were 

to occur. With these changes, other TS 

requirements for shutdown cooling in Mode 

4 will continue to be met. Based on review 

of plant operating experience, there is no 

discernable change in cooldown rates when 

utilizing a single train of RHR for shutdown 

cooling. Thus, no margin of safety is reduced 

as part of this change. 

Therefore, the proposed Technical 

Specification changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50– 

366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, Appling County, GA 

Date of amendment request: January 

13, 2015. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15014A411. 

Description of amendment request: 

The licensee proposes to adopt 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) change number 523, revision 2, 

‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas 

Accumulation,’’ for the Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit 1 and 2, technical 

specifications (TS). The proposed 

change would revise or add 

Surveillance Requirements to verify that 

the system locations susceptible to gas 

accumulation are sufficiently filled with 

water and to provide allowances which 

permit performance of the verification. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds 

Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that 

require verification that the Emergency Core 

Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat 

Removal (RHR) System, the 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, the RHR SDC System, the CS System, 

and the RCIC System are not rendered 

inoperable due to accumulated gas and to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

provide allowances which permit 

performance of the revised verification. The 

proposed change does not involve a physical 

alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. In addition, the proposed 

change does not impose any new or different 

requirements that could initiate an accident. 

The proposed change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis and 

is consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, the 

RHR, 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. 

Based on the above, SNC concludes that 

the proposed change presents no significant 

hazards consideration under the standards 

set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 

accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant 

hazards consideration’’ is justified. 

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: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

40 Inverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35201. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, Docket Nos.: 52–027 and 52– 

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: January 

27, 2015. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15028A537. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change, if approved, 

would revise, in part, the description 

and scope of human factors engineering 

(HFE) operational sequence analysis 

(OSA) task and delete a reference to 

document WCAP–15847, which are 

both identified as Tier 2* information in 

the Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR). 

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 deletion of WCAP–15847 

removes obsolete and superseded procedures 

from the licensing basis. The amendment of 

the operational sequence analysis (OSA) task 

alters the automatic depressurization system 

(ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The 

proposed changes to the procedures do not 

involve any accident initiating component/

system failure or event, and the change to the 

ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents 

that would occur if the tests were performed 

in Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the 

accidents previously evaluated are not 

affected. The affected procedures and 

requirements do not adversely 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 Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report 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. 

Removing WCAP–15847 from the UFSAR 

and amending the OSA task regarding ADS 

valve testing does not adversely affect the 

design or operation of safety-related 

equipment or equipment whose failure could 

initiate an accident other than what is 

already described in the licensing basis. 

These changes do not adversely affect safetyrelated equipment or fission product barriers. 

No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 

limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 

the requested change. 

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 changes to remove WCAP– 

15847 from the UFSAR and amend the OSA 

task do not adversely affect any safety-related 

equipment, design code compliance, design 

function, design analysis, safety analysis 

input or result, or design/safety margin 

because NQA–1 requirements are maintained 

in other Westinghouse procedures and 

testing of the ADS valves is still performed. 

No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 

limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 

the proposed changes, thus no margin of 

safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. 

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004–2514. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 

and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: January 

30, 2015. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15030A505. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would amend 

Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and 

NPF–92 for the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. 

The requested amendment proposes 

changes to Tier 2* information 

contained within the Human Factors 

Engineering Design Verification, Task 

Support Verification and Integrated 

System Validation (ISV) plans. These 

documents are incorporated by 

reference into the VEGP Units 3 and 4 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, 

and will additionally require changes to 

be made to affected Tier 2 information. 

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? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13913 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment includes 

changes to Integrated System Validation 

(ISV) activities, which are performed on the 

AP1000 plant simulator to validate the 

adequacy of the AP1000 human system 

interface design and confirm that it meets 

human factors engineering principles. The 

proposed changes involve administrative 

details related to performance of the ISV, and 

no plant hardware or equipment is affected 

whose failure could initiate an accident, or 

that interfaces with a component that could 

initiate an accident, or that contains 

radioactive material. Therefore, these 

changes have no effect on any accident 

initiator in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR), nor do they affect the 

radioactive material releases in the UFSAR 

accident analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve an increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment includes 

changes to ISV activities, which are 

performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to 

validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human 

system interface design and confirm that it 

meets human factors engineering principles. 

The proposed changes involve administrative 

details related to performance of the ISV, and 

no plant hardware or equipment is affected 

whose failure could initiate an accident, or 

that interfaces with a component that could 

initiate an accident, or that contains 

radioactive material. Although the ISV may 

identify a need to initiate changes to add, 

modify, or remove plant structures, systems, 

or components, these changes will not be 

made directly as part of the ISV. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment includes 

changes to ISV activities, which are 

performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to 

validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human 

system interface design and confirm that it 

meets human factors engineering principles. 

The proposed changes involve administrative 

details related to performance of the ISV, and 

do not affect any safety-related equipment, 

design code compliance, design function, 

design analysis, safety analysis input or 

result, or design/safety margin. No safety 

analysis or design basis acceptance limit/

criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 

proposed changes, thus no margin of safety 

is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

September 13, 2012, as supplemented 

August 2, 2013, July 3, July 17, 

November 11, and December 12, 2014. 

Publicly-available versions are in 

ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML12258A055, ML13217A072, 

ML14189A554, ML14198A574, 

ML14315A051 and ML14346A643, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify certain Technical Specification 

(TS) requirements related to Completion 

Times for Required Actions to provide 

the option to calculate a longer, riskinformed Completion Time. The 

allowance will be described in a new 

program, ‘‘Risk Informed Completion 

Time Program (RICT),’’ to be approved 

by NRC and to be added to Chapter 5, 

‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ of the 

Technical Specifications. The 

methodology for using the RICT 

Program is described in an industry 

document NEI 06–09, ‘‘Risk-Informed 

Technical Specifications Initiative 4b, 

Risk-Managed Technical Specifications 

(RMTS) Guidelines,’’ which was 

approved by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) on May 17, 2007. 

Adherence to NEI 06–09 is required by 

the proposed RICT Program. The 

proposed amendment is also consistent 

with the methodologies presented in an 

industry initiative identified as TSTF– 

505, Revision 1, ‘‘Provide Risk-Informed 

Extended Completion Times—RITSTF 

Initiative 4b.’’ Although the proposed 

amendment is consistent with TSTF– 

505, the licensee is not proposing 

adoption of TSTF–505 with this 

proposed amendment; the proposed 

amendment is a site-specific action. 

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 permits the 

extension of Completion Times provided risk 

is assessed and managed within the Risk 

Informed Completion Time Program. The 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated because the 

changes involve no change to the plant or its 

modes of operation. This proposed change 

does not increase the consequences of an 

accident because the design-basis mitigation 

function of the affected systems is not 

changed and the consequences of an accident 

during the extended Completion Time are no 

different from those during the existing 

Completion Time. 

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 does not change the 

design, configuration, or method of operation 

of the plant. The proposed change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no 

new or different kind of equipment will be 

installed). 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety[?] 

Response: No. 

The proposed change permits the 

extension of Completion Times provided risk 

is assessed and managed within the Risk 

Informed Completion Time Program. The 

proposed change implements a risk-informed 

configuration management program to assure 

that adequate margins of safety are 

maintained. Application of these new 

specifications and the configuration 

management program considers cumulative 

effects of multiple systems or components 

being out of service and does so more 

effectively than the current TS. 

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 

requested amendment involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

40 Inverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35242. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 

Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, 

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 

and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: 

December 2, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14339A539. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.h, 

‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing 

Program,’’ by adopting Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision 3–A, 

‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing 

Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix J,’’ as the 

implementation document for the 

performance-based Option B of 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix J. The proposed 

changes would permanently extend the 

Type A containment integrated leak rate 

testing (ILRT) interval from 10 years to 

15 years, and the Type C local leakage 

rate testing (LLRT) intervals from 60 

months to 75 months. 

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 

consequence of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h 

changes the testing period to a permanent 15- 

year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part 

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75- 

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The 

current type A test interval of 10 years would 

be extended to 15 years from the last Type 

A test. The proposed extension to Type A 

testing does not involve a significant increase 

in the consequences of an accident because 

research documented in NUREG–1493, 

‘‘Performance-Based Containment System 

Leakage Testing Requirements [sic] 

[Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test 

Program],’’ September 1995, has found that, 

generically, very few potential containment 

leakage paths are not identified by Type B 

and C tests. NUREG–1493 concluded that 

reducing the Type A testing frequency to one 

per twenty years was found to lead to an 

imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree 

of assurance is provided through testing and 

inspection that the containment will not 

degrade in a manner detectable only by Type 

A testing. The last Type A test (performed 

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and 

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2) shows 

leakage to be below acceptance criteria, 

indicating a very leak tight containment. 

Inspections required by the ASME [American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code 

section Xl (subsections IWE and IWL) and 

Maintenance Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, 

‘‘Requirements for Monitoring the 

Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear 

Power Plants’’), are performed in order to 

identify indications of containment 

degradation that could affect that leak 

tightness. Types B and C testing required by 

TSs will identify any containment opening 

such as valves that would otherwise be 

detected by the Type A tests. These factors 

show that a Type A test interval extension 

will not represent a significant increase in 

the consequences of an accident. 

The proposed amendment involves 

changes to the SQN, Units 1 and 2, 10 CFR 

50 Appendix J Testing Program Plan. The 

proposed amendment does not involve a 

physical change to the plant or a change in 

the manner in which the units are operated 

or controlled. The primary containment 

function is to provide an essentially leak 

tight barrier against the uncontrolled release 

of radioactivity to the environment for 

postulated accidents. As such, the 

containment itself and the testing 

requirements to periodically demonstrate the 

integrity of the containment exist to ensure 

the plant’s ability to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident, and do not 

involve any accident precursors or initiators. 

Therefore, the probability of occurrence of 

an accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased by the proposed 

amendment. 

The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision 

3–A, for development of the SQN, Units 1 

and 2, performance-based leakage testing 

program. Implementation of these guidelines 

continues to provide adequate assurance that 

during design basis accidents, the primary 

containment and its components will limit 

leakage rates to less than the values assumed 

in the plant safety analyses. The potential 

consequences of extending the ILRT interval 

from 10 years to 15 years have been 

evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes 

in risk. The increase in risk in terms of 

person-rem per year resulting from design 

basis accidents was estimated to be very 

small, and the increase in the LERF [large 

early release frequency] resulting from the 

proposed change was determined to be 

within the guidelines published in NRC RG 

[Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, the 

proposed change maintains defense-in-depth 

by preserving a reasonable balance among 

prevention of core damage, prevention of 

containment failure, and consequence 

mitigation. TVA has determined that the 

increase in CCFP [conditional containment 

failure probability] due to the proposed 

change would be very small. 

Based on the above discussions, the 

proposed changes do not involve an increase 

in the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h 

changes the testing period to a permanent 15- 

year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part 

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75- 

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The 

current test interval of 10 years, based on 

past performance, would be extended to 15 

years from the last Type A test (performed 

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and 

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The 

proposed extension to Type A and Type C 

test intervals does not create the possibility 

of a new or different type of accident because 

there are no physical changes being made to 

the plant and there are no changes to the 

operation of the plant that could introduce a 

new failure mode creating an accident or 

affecting the mitigation of an accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h 

changes the testing period to a permanent 15- 

year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part 

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75- 

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The 

current test interval of 10 years, based on 

past performance, would be extended to 15 

years from the last Type A test (performed 

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and 

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The 

proposed extension to Type A testing will 

not significantly reduce the margin of safety. 

NUREG–1493, ‘‘Performance-Based 

Containment System Leakage Testing 

Requirements [sic] [Performance-Based 

Containment Leak-Test Program],’’ 

September 1995, generic study of the effects 

of extending containment leakage testing, 

found that a 20-year extension to Type A 

leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible 

increase in risk to the public. NUREG–1493 

found that, generically, the design 

containment leakage rate contributes about 

0.1% to the individual risk and that the 

decrease in Type A testing frequency would 

have a minimal effect on this risk since 95% 

of the potential leakage paths are detected by 

Type C testing. Regular inspections required 

by the ASME Code section Xl (subsections 

IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule 

monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, ‘‘Requirements for 

Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance 

at Nuclear Power Plants’’) will further reduce 

the risk of a containment leakage path going 

undetected. 

The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision 

3–A, for development of the SQN, Units 1 

and 2, performance-based leakage testing 

program, and establishes a 15-year interval 

for the performance of the primary 

containment ILRT and a 75-month interval 

for Type C testing. The amendment 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 

10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Testing Program 

Plan, as defined in the TS, ensure that the 

degree of primary containment structural 

integrity and leak-tightness that is considered 

in the plant safety analyses is maintained. 

The overall containment leakage rate limit 

specified by the TS is maintained, and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13915 

Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests 

will continue to be performed at the 

frequencies established in accordance with 

the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, 

Revision 3–A. 

Containment inspections performed in 

accordance with other plant programs serve 

to provide a high degree of assurance that the 

containment will not degrade in a manner 

that is detectable only by an ILRT. This 

ensures that evidence of containment 

structural degradation is identified in a 

timely manner. Furthermore, a risk 

assessment using the current SQN, Units 1 

and 2, PRA model concluded that extending 

the ILRT test interval from 10 years to 15 

years results in a very small change to the 

SQN, Units 1 and 2, risk profile. 

Accordingly, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West 

Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. 

III. Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses, 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination, and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: February 

12, 2015. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15044A471. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would allow a revision to the 

acceptance criteria for the Surveillance 

Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control Rod G– 

3. During the last two performances of 

this Surveillance on September 18, 

2014, and December 11, 2014, Control 

Rod G–3 misalignment occurred with 

Shutdown Bank B group movement as 

displayed by Individual Rod Position 

Indication and Plant Instrument 

Computer System. The proposed change 

is to defer subsequent testing of the 

Control Rod G–3 until repaired during 

the next refuel outage (March 2016) or 

forced outage long enough to repair the 

Control Rod. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: March 2, 

2015 (80 FR 11236). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

April 1, 2015 (public comments); May 1, 

2015 (hearing requests). 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323 for 

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 

(DCPP), Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 72– 

26 for Diablo Canyon Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), 

San Luis Obispo County, California 

Date of amendment request: 

September 24, 2013, as supplemented 

by letters dated December 18, 2013 

(security-related), and May 15, 2014. 

Publicly-available versions of the letters 

dated September 24, 2013, and May 15, 

2014, are in ADAMS under Accession 

Nos. ML13268A398 and ML14135A379, 

respectively. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendments 

would modify the licenses to reflect a 

grant of section 161A of the Atomic 

Energy Act, to authorize the licensee the 

authority to possess and use certain 

firearms, ammunition, and other devices 

such as large-capacity ammunition 

feeding devices, to implement the NRCapproved security plan for DCPP, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2, and the Diablo Canyon 

ISFSI. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: February 

18, 2015 (80 FR 8706). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

March 20, 2015 (public comments); 

April 19, 2015 (hearing requests). 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361, 50–362, and 

72–41, San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San 

Diego County, California 

Date of amendment request: August 

28, 2013, as supplemented by letters 

dated December 31, 2013, May 15, 2014, 

and February 10, 2015. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML13242A277, 

ML14007A496, ML14139A424, and 

ML15044A047, respectively. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The licensee is requesting that 

the Commission grant it preemption 

authority consistent with the 

Commission’s authority under section 

161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

as amended, to authorize the security 

personnel of designated classes of 

licensees to possess, use, and access 

covered weapons for the physical 

security of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, and 

the Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation, notwithstanding Federal, 

State, or local laws prohibiting such 

possession or use. If the amendment 

request is granted, the licenses would be 

modified to reflect the Commission’s 

granting of section 161A preemption 

authority. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: February 

18, 2015 (80 FR 8701). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

March 20, 2015 (public comments); 

April 20, 2015 (hearing requests). 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

The Commission has applied the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made 

a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The basis for this 

determination is contained in the 

documents related to this action. 

Accordingly, the amendments have 

been issued and made effective as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the application for 

amendment, (2) the amendment to 

Facility Operating License or Combined 

License, as applicable, and (3) the 

Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment, as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

The Commission is also offering an 

opportunity for a hearing with respect to 

the issuance of the amendment. Within 

60 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, any person(s) whose interest 

may be affected by this action may file 

a request for a hearing and a petition to 

intervene with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license or combined license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

person(s) should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 

the NRC’s PDR, located at One White 

Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, and electronically on 

the Internet at the NRC’s Web site, 

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

accessing the document, contact the 

PDR’s Reference staff at 1–800–397– 

4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to 

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

hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

is filed by the above date, the 

Commission or a presiding officer 

designated by the Commission or by the 

Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) the 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/ 

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. The 

petition must include sufficient 

information to show that a genuine 

dispute exists with the applicant on a 

material issue of law or fact. 

Contentions shall be limited to matters 

within the scope of the amendment 

under consideration. The contention 

must be one which, if proven, would 

entitle the petitioner to relief. A 

requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy 

these requirements with respect to at 

least one contention will not be 

permitted to participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. Since the Commission has 

made a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, if a hearing is 

requested, it will not stay the 

effectiveness of the amendment. Any 

hearing held would take place while the 

amendment is in effect. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13917 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http:// 

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) first class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by 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. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–353, Limerick Generating 

Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: February 

12, 2015. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment extends the 

implementation period for Amendment 

No. 174, ‘‘Leak Detection System 

Setpoint and Allowable Value 

Changes,’’ which was issued on 

December 29, 2014. Amendment No. 

174 was effective as of the date of 

issuance (i.e., on December 29, 2014) 

and was required to be implemented 

within 60 days (i.e., by February 27, 

2015). Amendment No. 177 extends the 

implementation period for Amendment 

No. 174 from 60 days to prior to startup 

from the spring 2015 refueling outage. 

Date of issuance: February 25, 2015. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to startup from the Spring 2015 

Unit 2 Refueling Outage. 

Amendment No.: 177. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15049A084; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–85: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License to 

extend the implementation date of 

Amendment No. 174, issued on 

December 29, 2014, to prior to startup 

from the Spring 2015 Unit 2 Refueling 

Outage. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public 

notice of the proposed amendment was 

published in The Pottstown Mercury, 

located in in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, 

on February 15, and February 16, 2015. 

The notice provided an opportunity to 

submit comments on the Commission’s 

proposed NSHC determination. 

Comments were received. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of exigent 

circumstances, state consultation, 

public comments, and final NSHC 

determination are contained in a safety 

evaluation dated February 25, 2015. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and 

Deputy General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon 

Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), 

Units 1, 2, and 3, Respectively, 

Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: February 

12, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The amendments revised 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, 

‘‘Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ 

to add the date of a previously issued 

NRC safety evaluation (SE) that stated it 

was acceptable for the licensee to use 

new analytical methods supporting the 

use of ATRIUM 10XM (10XM) fuel. In 

its letter dated February 12, 2015, the 

licensee stated BFN, Unit 2, is entering 

an outage on March 14, 2015, and is 

scheduled to commence loading 10XM 

fuel on March 17, 2015. Because the TSs 

do not reference the aforementioned 

NRC evaluation, the licensee would not 

be able to issue a COLR for the Unit 2 

transition cycle unless the notation to 

the latest NRC SE is added. Therefore, 

the licensee requested that NRC process 

the license amendment request under 

exigent circumstances in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The NRC staff 

determined that the provisions of 10 

CFR 50.91(a)(6) were applicable for 

processing the licensee’s request under 

exigent circumstances. 

Date of issuance: February 26, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

during the refueling outages in fall of 

2016 for Unit 1, in spring of 2015 for 

Unit 2, and in spring of 2016 for Unit 

3. 

Amendment Nos.: 288, 313, and 272, 

which are available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15051A337. 

Documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the SE enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: 

Amendments revised the TSs. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): The public 

notice was published in ‘‘The 

Huntsville Times,’’ located in 

Huntsville, Alabama, on February 18 

and 20, 2015. The notice provided an 

opportunity to submit comments on the 

Commission’s proposed NSHC 

determination. No comments have been 

received. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of exigent 

circumstances, state consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated February 26, 

2015. 

Attorney for licensee: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, TN 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. 

V. 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. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 12, 2012, as supplemented by 

letters dated February 21, September 30, 

October 24, and December 2, 2013; 

April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14, 

November 4, and December 18, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment authorizes the transition of 

the Palisades Nuclear Plant fire 

protection program to a risk-informed, 

performance-based program based on 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 

50.48(c). 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: February 27, 2015. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

six months from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 254. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15007A191; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–20: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR 

11148). The supplements dated April 2, 

May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4, 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13919 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: March 

26, 2013, as supplemented by letters 

dated November 14, 2013, and August 

18, October 22, and December 5, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements for end 

states associated with the 

implementation of the NRC-approved 

Topical Report BAW–2441–A, Revision 

2, ‘‘Risk-Informed Justification for LCO 

End-State Changes,’’ as well as Required 

Actions revised by a specific Note in TS 

Task Force (TSTF) change traveler 

TSTF–431, Revision 3, ‘‘Change in 

Technical Specifications End States 

(BAW–2441).’’ 

Date of issuance: March 3, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 253. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15023A147; 

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 

TSs/license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44170). 

The supplemental letters dated 

November 14, 2013, and August 19, 

October 22, and December 5, 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 March 3, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

December 9, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated October 1, 2014, and 

December 17, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications for the Waterford Steam 

Electric Station, Unit 3 to improve 

clarity, correct administrative and 

typographical errors, or establish 

consistency with NUREG–1432, 

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications— 

Combustion Engineering Plants,’’ 

Revision 4.0. 

Date of issuance: February 23, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 90 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 242. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15005A126; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

38: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45475). 

The supplements dated October 1, 2014, 

and December 17, 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 February 23, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: February 

26, 2014, as supplemented by letters 

dated May 29 and July 25, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs), modifying 

requirements for mode change 

limitations in Limiting Condition for 

Operation 3.0.4 and Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 4.0.4 to adopt the 

provisions of Industry/TS Task Force 

(TSTF)–359, Rev. 9, ‘‘Increase 

Flexibility in MODE Restraints.’’ The 

language of SR 4.0.1 is revised to 

conform to the language of NUREG– 

1432, ‘‘Standard Technical 

Specifications for Combustion 

Engineering Plants,’’ to resolve language 

incongruences and ensure conservative 

implementation of the TSTF–359, Rev. 

9, changes. 

Date of issuance: February 27, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 220 and 170. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14343A918; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

67 and NPF–16: Amendments revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30187). 

The supplements dated May 29 and July 

25, 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 SE 

dated February 27, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Luminant Generation Company LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, 

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: July 1, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification 3.8.1, ‘‘AC [Alternating 

Current] Sources—Operating,’’ to extend 

on a one-time basis the Completion 

Time (CT) of Required Action A.3, 

‘‘Restore required offsite circuit to 

OPERABLE status,’’ from 72 hours to 14 

days. The CT extension from 72 hours 

to 14 days will be used while 

completing the plant modification to 

install alternate startup transformer 

XST1A and will expire on March 31, 

2017. 

Date of issuance: February 24, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within [licensee requested number] days 

from the date of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—164; Unit 

2—164. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15008A133; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

87 and NPF–89: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 

64226). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: April 30, 

2014, as supplemented by letter dated 

January 27, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification section 3.2, Table 3–5, for 

Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to add 

a new surveillance requirement to verify 

the correct position of the valves 

required to restrict flow in the high 

pressure safety injection system. 

Date of issuance: February 20, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 280. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15015A413; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the license and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR 

49108). The supplemental letter dated 

January 27, 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 20, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South 

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 

County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: August 

14, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated December 18, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Administrative 

Controls Technical Specification (TS) 

6.9.1.6, ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report 

(COLR),’’ with respect to the analytical 

methods used to determine the core 

operating limits. 

Date of issuance: February 27, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—204; Unit 

2—192. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15049A129; 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: December 2, 2014 (79 FR 

71455). The supplemental letter dated 

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 February 27, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of March 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05994 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB 

Review, Request for Comments 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad 

Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding 

an Information Collection Request (ICR) 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). Our 

ICR describes the information we seek 

to collect from the public. Review and 

approval by OIRA ensures that we 

impose appropriate paperwork burdens. 

The RRB invites comments on the 

proposed collection of information to 

determine (1) the practical utility of the 

collection; (2) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden of the collection; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information that is the 

subject of collection; and (4) ways to 

minimize the burden of collections on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments to the RRB or OIRA must 

contain the OMB control number of the 

ICR. For proper consideration of your 

comments, it is best if the RRB and 

OIRA receive them within 30 days of 

the publication date. 

Title and Purpose of information 

collection: Evidence for Application of 

Overall Minimum; OMB 3220–0083. 

Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad 

Retirement Act (RRA), the total monthly 

benefits payable to a railroad employee 

and his/her family are guaranteed to be 

no less than the amount which would 

be payable if the employee’s railroad 

service had been covered by the Social 

Security Act. This is referred to as the 

Social Security Overall Minimum 

Guarantee, which is prescribed in 20 

CFR 229. To administer this provision, 

the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) 

requires information about a retired 

employee’s spouse and child(ren) who 

would not be eligible for benefits under 

the RRA but would be eligible for 

benefits under the Social Security Act if 

the employee’s railroad service had 

been covered by that Act. The RRB 

obtains the required information by the 

use of Forms G–319, Statement 

Regarding Family and Earnings for 

Special Guaranty Computation, and G– 

320, Student Questionnaire for Special 

Guaranty Computation. One response is 

required of each respondent. 

Completion is required to obtain or 

retain benefits. 

Previous Requests for Comments: The 

RRB has already published the initial 

60-day notice (80 FR 1679 on January 

13, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2). That request elicited no 

comments. 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

Title: Statement Regarding 

Contributions and Support of Children. 

Title: Evidence for Application of 

Overall Minimum. 

OMB Control Number: 3220–0083. 

Forms submitted: G–319 and G–320. 

Type of request: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Affected public: Individuals or 

Households. 

Abstract: Under Section 3(f)(3) of the 

Railroad Retirement Act, the total 

monthly benefits payable to a railroad 

employee and his/her family are 

guaranteed to be no less than the 

amount which would be payable if the 

employee’s railroad service had been 

covered by the Social Security Act. 

Changes proposed: The RRB proposes 

non-burden impacting editorial changes 

to Forms G–319 and G–320. 

The burden estimate for the ICR is as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES