20020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

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. 

IV. Conclusion 

Using the reasons set forth in the 

combined safety evaluation, the staff 

granted the exemption and issued the 

amendment that the licensee requested 

on July 29, 2014, as supplemented by 

letter dated November 5, 2014. The 

exemption and amendment were issued 

on February 13, 2015 as part of a 

combined package to the licensee 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML14350B012). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day 

of April 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Chandu P. Patel, 

Acting Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division 

of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New 

Reactors. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08566 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0088] 

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 March 19, 

2015 to April 1, 2015. The last biweekly 

notice was published on March 31, 

2015. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 

14, 2015. A request for a hearing must 

be filed by June 15, 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–2015–0088. 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: 

Angela Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–2976, email: 

Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– 

0088 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–2015–0088. 

• 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– 

0088, facility name, unit number(s), 

application date, and subject in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20021 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity to Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave to Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

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

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

by the above date, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20022 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use E-Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E-Filing no 

longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

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. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: February 

2, 2015. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15036A486. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify several Technical Specification 

Limiting Conditions for Operation 

(LCOs) and Surveillance Requirements 

(SRs) to allow secondary containment 

access openings to be opened 

intermittently under administrative 

control. 

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 allow 

temporary conditions during which the 

secondary containment LCO and SRs are not 

met. The secondary containment is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

increased. The consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated while utilizing the 

proposed changes are no different than the 

consequences of an accident while utilizing 

the existing 4-hour allowed outage time for 

an inoperable reactor enclosure secondary 

containment. As a result, the consequences of 

an 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. The proposed changes do 

not alter the protection system design, create 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20023 

new failure modes, or change any modes of 

operation. The proposed changes do not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant, and 

no new or different kind of equipment will 

be installed. Consequently, there are no new 

initiators that could result in a new or 

different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. The proposed changes allow 

temporary conditions during which the 

secondary containment LCO and SRs are not 

met. Temporary conditions in which the 

secondary containment vacuum is below the 

required limit are acceptable provided the 

conditions do not affect the ability of the 

Standby Gas Treatment System to establish 

the required secondary containment vacuum. 

This condition is incorporated in the 

proposed changes by requiring the condition 

to be momentary or under administrative 

control such that the conditions equivalent to 

the design condition can be quickly restored 

should secondary containment vacuum be 

required. Therefore, the safety function of the 

secondary containment is not affected. The 

allowance for both an inner and outer 

secondary containment access door to be 

open simultaneously for entry and exit does 

not affect the safety function of the secondary 

containment as the doors are promptly closed 

after entry or exit, thereby restoring the 

secondary containment boundary. 

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, Esquire, Vice President and 

Deputy General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Doulas A. 

Broaddus. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, 

York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: February 

23, 2015. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15055A506. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify a Technical Specification 

Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 

and certain Surveillance Requirements 

(SRs) to allow secondary containment 

access openings to be opened 

intermittently under administrative 

control. 

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 allow 

temporary conditions during which the 

secondary containment LCO and certain SRs 

are not met. The secondary containment is 

not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

increased. The consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated while utilizing the 

proposed changes are no different than the 

consequences of an accident while utilizing 

the existing 4-hour Completion Time for an 

inoperable secondary containment. As a 

result, the consequences of an 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. The proposed changes do 

not alter the protection system design, create 

new failure modes, or change any modes of 

operation. The proposed changes do not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant; and 

no new or different kind of equipment will 

be installed. Consequently, there are no new 

initiators that could result in a new or 

different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. The proposed changes allow 

temporary conditions during which the 

secondary containment LCO and certain SRs 

are not met. Temporary conditions in which 

the secondary containment is open is 

acceptable provided the conditions do not 

affect the ability of the Standby Gas 

Treatment System to create a lower pressure 

in the secondary containment than in the 

outside environment if required. This 

condition is incorporated in the proposed 

changes by requiring the condition to be 

under administrative control such that the 

conditions equivalent to the design condition 

can be quickly restored should secondary 

containment vacuum be required. Therefore, 

the safety function of the secondary 

containment is not affected. The allowance 

for both an inner and outer secondary 

containment door to be open simultaneously 

for entry and exit does not affect the safety 

function of the secondary containment as the 

doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, 

thereby restoring the secondary containment 

boundary. The ability to open secondary 

containment access openings under 

administrative control, even if it means the 

secondary containment boundary is 

temporarily not intact, is acceptable due to 

the low probability of an event that requires 

secondary containment during the short time 

in which the secondary containment is open 

and the presence of administrative controls 

to rapidly close the opening. 

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, Esquire, Vice President and 

Deputy General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

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: 

December 11, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14349A749. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendments 

would revise the technical specification 

(TS) 3.3.3, ‘‘EM [Event Monitoring] 

Instrumentation,’’ to add the Steam 

Generator Water Level—Narrow Range 

Instruments to Table 3.3.3–1. In 

addition, the amendments would revise 

Appendix B, ‘‘Additional Condition,’’ of 

the Renewed Operating License for each 

unit regarding implementation of 

License Amendment Nos. 206 (Unit 1) 

and 193 (Unit 2) for Alternative Source 

Term (AST), and removes two AST 

Additional Conditions for each unit that 

have been fulfilled. 

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 is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed amendments involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The license amendment requests propose 

to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 

range) Instrumentation to Technical 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

Specification Event Monitoring 

Instrumentation; revise license Additional 

Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water 

Level (narrow range) Instrument 

implementation requirements from 

Alternative Source Term license amendment 

implementation; and remove Alternative 

Source Term amendment implementation 

Additional Conditions which have been 

fulfilled. 

The Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 

range) Instrumentation is not an accident 

initiator and therefore addition of this 

instrumentation to the Technical 

Specifications does not increase the 

probability of an accident. Addition of this 

instrumentation to the Technical 

Specifications will bring it under the controls 

and testing requirements of the Technical 

Specifications. The proposed change will not 

increase the consequences of previouslyevaluated accidents because the inclusion of 

these instruments in the technical 

specification improves their reliability to 

perform during a postulated accident. 

Therefore, the proposed Technical 

Specification changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The Alternative Source Term license 

amendment was previously analyzed and 

approved for implementation. The proposed 

Additional Condition revision to exclude 

Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) 

Instrumentation implementation 

requirements from Alternative Source Term 

license amendment implementation clarifies 

implementation requirements and allows 

completion of implementation activities. 

Since the Alternative Source Term 

amendment was previously approved, this 

change does not increase the probability or 

consequences of a previously evaluated 

accident. 

Removal of license Additional Conditions 

which have been fulfilled is an 

administrative change and thus this change 

does not increase the probability or 

consequences of a previously evaluated 

accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed amendments create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The license amendment requests propose 

to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 

range) Instrumentation to Technical 

Specification Event Monitoring 

Instrumentation; revise license Additional 

Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water 

Level (narrow range) Instrument 

implementation requirements from 

Alternative Source Term license amendment 

implementation; and remove Alternative 

Source Term amendment implementation 

Additional Conditions which have been 

fulfilled. 

The proposed Technical Specification 

changes and Additional Condition changes 

and the resulting instrument upgrades do not 

create new failure modes or mechanisms and 

do not change plant conditions from which 

some new material interaction may create a 

new or different type of accident. Thus, the 

Technical Specification and license 

Additional Condition changes do not create 

new failure modes or mechanisms, nor do 

they generate new accident precursors. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed removal of fulfilled 

Additional Conditions is an administrative 

change and thus does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident. 

3. Do the proposed amendments involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The license amendment requests propose 

to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 

range) Instrumentation to Technical 

Specification Event Monitoring 

Instrumentation; revise license Additional 

Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water 

Level (narrow range) Instrument 

implementation requirements from 

Alternative Source Term license amendment 

implementation; and remove Alternative 

Source Term amendment implementation 

Additional Conditions which have been 

fulfilled. 

Addition of this instrumentation to the 

Technical Specifications will bring it under 

the controls and testing requirements of the 

Technical Specifications. The proposed 

change will not increase the consequences of 

previously evaluated accidents because 

instrument upgrade and the inclusion of 

these instruments in the Technical 

Specifications improve their reliability to 

perform during a postulated accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The Alternative Source Term license 

amendment was previously analyzed and 

approved for implementation. The proposed 

Additional Condition revision to exclude 

Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) 

Instrumentation implementation 

requirements from Alternative Source Term 

license amendment implementation clarifies 

implementation requirements and allows 

completion of implementation activities. 

Since the Alternative Source Term 

[amendment] was previously approved, the 

changes proposed in this license amendment 

do not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The proposed removal of fulfilled 

Additional Conditions is administrative in 

nature and thus 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: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1, 

Salem County, New Jersey 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 

and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: 

December 9, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14343A926. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Public Service Electric and 

Gas Nuclear LLC (PSEG) Environmental 

Protection Plans (Non-Radiological), 

Appendix B to the renewed facility 

operating license (FOL) numbers DPR– 

70 and DPR–75 for Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and 

the renewed FOL number NPF–57 for 

Hope Creek Generating Station. The 

proposed changes will simplify the 

Aquatic Monitoring section of Appendix 

B, modify the criteria for reporting 

Unusual or Important Environmental 

Events, and will clarify that PSEG 

Nuclear must adhere to the currently 

applicable Biological Opinion. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below, with NRC staff edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The [Environmental Protection Plan] EPP 

provides for protection of non-radiological 

environmental values during operation of the 

nuclear facility. 

The proposed changes do not have any 

impact on structures, systems and 

components (SSCs) of the plant, and no effect 

on plant operations. The proposed changes 

do not impact any accident initiators, or 

analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of 

accident or transient events. The proposed 

changes do not result in the addition or 

removal of any equipment. 

Therefore, these proposed changes do not 

represent 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 changes are administrative 

in nature and do not involve a modification 

to the physical configuration of the plant 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20025 

(i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or 

change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. The proposed changes will 

not impose any new or different 

requirements or introduce a new accident 

initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction 

mechanism. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

in nature. 

There is no change to any design basis, 

licensing basis or safety limit, and no change 

to any parameters; consequently no safety 

margins are affected. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Based upon the above, PSEG 

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, and with the changes noted 

above in square brackets, 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, 

PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

Docket Nos.: 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil 

C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) 

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

September 25, 2014; as supplemented 

by letter dated March 13, 2015. 

Publicly-available versions are in 

ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML14268A388 and ML15072A306, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would amend 

Combined License Nos. NPF–93 and 

NPF–94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by 

allowing changes to adjust the concrete 

wall thickness tolerances of four 

Nuclear Island walls found in Tier 1. In 

addition, the changes include an update 

to Tier 2 Subsection 3.8.3.6.1 to address 

the exceeded American Concrete 

Institute (ACI) 117 tolerance for the four 

affected walls. 

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. 

As indicated in the Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report Subsection 3.8.3.1, the 

containment internal structures and 

associated modules support the reactor 

coolant system components and related 

piping systems and equipment. The increase 

in tolerance associated with the concrete 

thickness of four of these containment 

internal structure walls do not involve any 

accident initiating components or events, 

thus leaving the probabilities of an accident 

unaltered. The increased tolerance does not 

adversely affect any safety-related structures 

or equipment nor does the increased 

tolerance reduce the effectiveness of a 

radioactive material barrier. Thus, the 

proposed changes would not affect any 

safety-related accident mitigating function 

served by the containment internal 

structures. 

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 tolerance increases do not 

change the performance of the affected 

containment internal structures. As 

demonstrated by the continued conformance 

to the applicable codes and standards 

governing the design of the structures, the 

walls with an increased concrete thickness 

tolerance continue to withstand the same 

effects as previously evaluated. There is no 

change to the design function of the affected 

modules and walls, and no new failure 

mechanisms are identified as the same types 

of accidents are presented to the walls before 

and after the change. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to increase the 

concrete thickness tolerance does not alter 

any design function, design analysis, or 

safety analysis input or result, and sufficient 

margin exists to justify a departure from the 

standards identified in the underlying Tier 2 

information with respect to the four affected 

walls. As such, because the system continues 

to respond to design basis accidents in the 

same manner as before without any changes 

to the expected response of the structure, no 

safety analysis or design basis acceptance 

limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 

the proposed changes. Accordingly, no safety 

margin is reduced by the increase of the wall 

concrete thickness tolerance. 

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 

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: March 6, 

2015. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15065A362. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment and 

exemption identify portions of the 

licensing basis that would more 

appropriately be classified as Tier 2, 

specifically the Tier 2* information on 

Fire Area Figures 9A–1, 9A–2, 9A–3, 

9A–4, 9A–5, and 9A–201 in the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 

With the reclassification, prior U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

approval would continue to be required 

for any safety significant changes to the 

Fire Area Figures because any revisions 

to that information would follow the 

Tier 2 change process provided in 10 

CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section 

VIII.B.5. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment would reclassify 

Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The 

proposed amendment does not modify the 

design, construction, or operation of any 

plant structures, systems, or components 

(SSCs), nor does it change any procedures or 

method of control for any SSCs. Because the 

proposed amendment does not change the 

design, construction, or operation of any 

SSCs, it does not adversely affect any design 

function as described in the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not affect the probability of an accident 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

previously evaluated. Similarly, because the 

proposed amendment does not alter the 

design or operation of the nuclear plant or 

any plant SSCs, the proposed amendment 

does not represent a change to the 

radiological effects of an accident, and 

therefore, does not involve an increase in the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment would reclassify 

Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The 

proposed amendment is not a modification, 

addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. 

Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not 

a change to procedures or method of control 

of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The 

only impact of this activity is the 

reclassification of information in the Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report. Because the 

proposed amendment only reclassifies 

information and does not change the design, 

construction, or operation of the nuclear 

plant or any plant operations, the 

amendment does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment would reclassify 

Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The 

proposed amendment is not a modification, 

addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. 

Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not 

a change to procedures or method of control 

of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The 

only impact of this activity is the 

reclassification of information in the Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report. 

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 

Burkhart. 

ZionSolutions LLC, Docket Nos. 50–295 

and 50–304, Zion Nuclear Power Station 

(Zion), Units 1 and 2, Lake County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: 

December 19, 2014, as supplemented on 

February 26, 2015. Publicly available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML15005A336 and 

ML15061A230, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would add 

License Condition 2.C (17) that 

approves the License Termination Plan 

(LTP) and establishes the criteria for 

determining when changes to the LTP 

require prior the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. 

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 change involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated? 

The only remaining accident after fuel 

transfer is completed in January 2015 is the 

Radwaste handling accident. Calculations 

were performed to determine the dose at the 

Exclusion Area Boundary that would result 

from dropping a High Integrity Container in 

the former Interim Radwaste Storage Facility 

(IRSF) such that its entire contents of 

radioactive, dewatered resin escape. A 

fraction of the escaped resin is non 

mechanistically assumed to be released as 

airborne radioactivity and pass from the IRSF 

directly to the environment, resulting in offsite dose consequences. The solid-to-aerosol 

release fraction is assumed to be the worst 

case non-mechanistic, mechanically initiated 

release fraction. The whole body and 

inhalation dose at the closest point on the 

Exclusion Area Boundary from the IRSF are 

then calculated. 

The results of the radiological dose 

consequences for an accident involving the 

failure of a High Integrity Container show 

that the projected doses are insignificant in 

comparison to the 10 CFR 100 guidelines, 

and are less than the EPA [Environmental 

Protection Agency] PAGs [protective action 

guidelines]. The projected dose at the Low 

Population Zone would be less than at the 

Exclusion Area Boundary and, since this 

accident involves an instantaneous release, it 

is also within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

boundaries used to evaluate compliance with 

liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and has no 

impact on plant operations. The proposed 

changes do not have an adverse impact on 

the remaining decommissioning activities or 

any decommissioning related postulated 

accident consequences. 

The proposed changes related to the 

approval of the LTP do not affect operating 

procedures or administrative controls that 

have the function of preventing or mitigating 

the remaining decommissioning design basis 

accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

(2) Does the change create the possibility 

of a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated? 

The accident analysis for the facility 

related to decommissioning activities is 

described in the DSAR [defueled safety 

analysis report]. The requested license 

amendment is consistent with the plant 

activities described in the DSAR and PSDAR 

[post-shutdown decommissioning activities 

report]. Thus, the proposed changes do not 

affect the remaining plant systems, 

structures, or components in a way not 

previously evaluated. 

There are sections of the LTP that refer to 

the decommissioning activities still 

remaining (e.g.; removal of large components, 

structure removal, etc.). However, these 

activities are performed in accordance with 

approved work packages/steps and undergo a 

10 CFR 50.59 screening prior to initiation. 

The proposed amendment merely makes 

mention of these processes and does not 

bring about physical changes to the facility. 

Therefore, the facility conditions for which 

the remaining postulated accident has been 

evaluated is still valid and no new accident 

scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single 

failures are introduced by this amendment. 

The system operating procedures are not 

affected. Therefore, the proposed changes 

will not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

(3) Does the change involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

The LTP is a plan for demonstrating 

compliance with the radiological criteria for 

license termination as provided in 10 CFR 

20.1402 (Reference 5). The margin of safety 

defined in the statements of consideration for 

the final rule on the Radiological Criteria for 

License Termination is described as the 

margin between the 100 mrem/yr public dose 

limit established in 10 CFR 20.1301 for 

licensed operation and the 25 mrem/yr dose 

limit to the average member of the critical 

group at a site considered acceptable for 

unrestricted use (one of the criteria of 10 CFR 

20.1402). This margin of safety accounts for 

the potential effect of multiple sources of 

radiation exposure to the critical group. 

Since the License Termination Plan is 

designed to comply with the radiological 

criteria for license termination for 

unrestricted use, the LTP supports this 

margin of safety. 

In addition, the LTP provides the 

methodologies and criteria that will be used 

to perform remediation activities of residual 

radioactivity to demonstrate compliance with 

the ALARA [as low as reasonably achievable] 

criterion of 10 CFR 20.1402. 

Additionally, the LTP is designed with 

recognition that (a) the methods in 

MARSSIM (Multi-Agency Radiation Survey 

and Site Investigation Manual) (Reference 6) 

and (b) the building surface contamination 

levels are not directly applicable to use with 

complex nonstructural components. 

Therefore, the LTP states that nonstructural 

components remaining in buildings (e.g., 

pumps, heat exchangers, etc.) will be 

evaluated against the criteria of Regulatory 

Guide 1.86 (Reference 7) to determine if the 

components can be released for unrestricted 

use. The LTP also states that materials, 

surveyed and evaluated as a part of normal 

decommissioning activities and prior to 

implementation of the final radiation 

surveys, will be surveyed for release using 

current site procedures to demonstrate 

compliance with the ‘‘no detectable’’ criteria. 

Such materials that do not pass these criteria 

will be controlled as contaminated. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20027 

Also, as previously discussed, the 

bounding accident for decommissioning is 

the resin container accident. Since the 

bounding decommissioning accident results 

in more airborne radioactivity than can be 

released from other decommissioning events, 

the margin of safety associated with the 

consequences of decommissioning accidents 

is not reduced by this activity. 

Thus, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Russ Workman, 

Deputy General Counsel, 

EnergySolutions, 423 West 300 South, 

Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84101. 

NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson. 

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, 

and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 

3, Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of application for amendment: 

November 20, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 20, 2013, and 

January 16 and December 19, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modified Technical 

Specification (TS) Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.1.4.1 utilizing 

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC’s 

topical report WCAP–16011–NP–A, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Startup Test Activity 

Reduction [STAR] Program,’’ February 

2005. The changes are consistent with 

NRC-approved Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler TSTF– 

486, Revision 2. The use of WCAP– 

16011–NP–A is justified by the licensee 

in WCAP–17787–NP, Revision 0, ‘‘Palo 

Verde Nuclear Generating Station STAR 

Program Implementation Report,’’ 

August 2013. 

The amendments also modify SR 

3.1.4.2 not to require the moderator 

temperature coefficient (MTC) 

determination if the result of the MTC 

determination required in TS 3.1.4.1 is 

within a certain tolerance of the 

corresponding design value. This 

change is based on the methods 

described in Combustion Engineering 

Owners Group Report CE NPSD–911–A 

and Amendment 1–A, ‘‘Analysis of 

Moderator Temperature Coefficients in 

Support of a Change in the Technical 

Specifications End-of-Cycle Negative 

MTC Limits,’’ September 2000. 

Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: Unit 1–195; Unit 2– 

195; Unit 3–195. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15070A124; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The 

amendment revised the Operating 

Licenses and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR 

11146). The supplemental letters dated 

January 16 and December 19, 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 March 30, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York 

County, South Carolina, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–369 and 

50–370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 

1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North 

Carolina 

Date of application for amendments: 

November 14, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated June 27, and November 10, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments approve the use of DPC– 

3001–NE–P, Revision 1, 

‘‘Multidimensional Reactor Transients 

and Safety Analysis Physics Parameters 

Methodology.’’ 

Date of issuance: March 25, 2015. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 274, 270, 277, and 

257. A publicly-available version of the 

application is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15027A366; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–35, NPF–52, NPF–9, and 

NPF–17: Amendments revised the 

licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR 

11147). The supplemental letters dated 

June 27, and November 10, 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 March 25, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20028 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket 

No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 

Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

September 26, 2013, as supplemented 

by letters dated March 28, May 23, and 

October 6, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the facility’s 

emergency plan and emergency action 

level scheme to reflect the low 

likelihood of any credible accident at 

the facility in its permanently shutdown 

and defueled condition that could result 

in radiological releases requiring offsite 

protective measures. 

Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 246. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15027A209; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

72: Amendment revised the emergency 

plan and the emergency action levels. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 7, 2014 (79 FR 857). 

The supplemental letters dated March 

28, May 23, and October 6, 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 31, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 24, 2014, as supplemented by 

letters dated May 8, August 28, 

November 6, and December 15, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1.1–1, 

‘‘Reactor Protection System 

Instrumentation,’’ Functions 7.a and 7.b 

to update Scram Discharge Volume 

instrumentation nomenclature, add a 

surveillance requirement (SR), which 

was previously omitted, and add 

footnotes to an SR consistent with TS 

Task Force (TSTF) change traveler 

TSTF–493, Revision 4, ‘‘Clarify 

Application of Setpoint Methodology 

for LSSS [Limiting Safety System 

Settings] Functions,’’ Option A. The 

notice of availability of the models for 

plant-specific adoption of TSTF–493, 

Revision 4, was announced in the 

Federal Register on May 11, 2010 (75 

FR 26294). 

Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to restarting from refueling outage 

R–22, scheduled for spring 2015. 

Amendment No.: 232. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15063A010; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–21: The amendment revised 

the Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42544). 

The supplemental letters dated August 

28, November 6, and December 15, 

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 27, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 25, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Columbia 

Generating Station Cyber Security Plan 

(CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation 

date as set forth in the CSP 

Implementation Schedule. 

Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 231. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15042A464; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–21: The amendment revised 

the Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60518). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 

(ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 26, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated December 12, 2013, and 

May 12, August 19, October 22, and 

December 5, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the ANO–2 

Technical Specification (TS) 

requirements for end states associated 

with the implementation of the NRCapproved Topical Report NPSD–1186, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Technical Justification for 

the Risk Informed Modification to 

Selected Required Action End States for 

CEOG [Combustion Engineering Owners 

Group] Member PWRs [PressurizedWater Reactors],’’ as well as Required 

Actions revised by a specific Note in TS 

Task Force (TSTF) change traveler 

TSTF–422, Revision 2, ‘‘Change in 

Technical Specifications End States (CE 

NPSD–1186).’’ The Notice of 

Availability for TSTF–422, Revision 2, 

was announced in the Federal Register 

on April 7, 2011 (76 FR 19510). 

Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 301. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15068A319; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications/license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44172). 

The supplemental letters dated 

December 12, 2013, and May 12, 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 31, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 10, 2013, as supplemented by 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20029 

letters dated October 24, 2013, March 5, 

2014, and February 4, 2015. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment revises the technical 

specifications (TSs), Surveillance 

Requirements 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5 to add 

new acceptance criteria for total battery 

connection resistance. 

Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 256 and 251. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML15056A772. 

Documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–29 and DPR–30: The 

amendments revised the TSs and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 

54283). The October 24, 2013, March 5, 

2014, and February 4, 2015, 

supplements contained clarifying 

information and did not change the NRC 

staff’s initial proposed finding of no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), 

Ocean County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 19, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated January 31, 2014, and 

November 3, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. DPR–16 for 

OCNGS. Specifically, the changes 

implement the use of an alternative 

measure that required prior NRC review 

and approval pursuant to Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 

Section 73.55(r), related to controlling 

vital area access for certain portions of 

the Reactor Building at OCNGS. 

Date of Issuance: March 30, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 285. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14329A625; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–16: The amendment revised 

the license and technical specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25901). 

The supplemental letter dated 

November 3, 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 this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake 

County, Ohio 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 8, 2014, as supplemented by a 

letter dated February 12, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the technical 

specifications (TSs) safety limit 

minimum critical power ratio value for 

single recirculation-loop-operation to 

support the use of GNF–2 fuel during 

the next operating cycle. 

Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 165. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15075A091; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

58: This amendment revised the TSs 

and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 13, 2015 (80 FR 

5819). The February 12, 2015, 

supplement contained clarifying 

information and did not change the NRC 

staff’s initial proposed finding of no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

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 requests: March 

7, 2014, as supplemented by letters 

dated September 30, 2014, December 16, 

2014, January 15, 2015, and February 

20, 2015. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Donald C. Cook 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical 

Specification 5.5.14, ‘‘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’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12221A202), and 

Section 4.1, ‘‘Limitations and 

Conditions for NEI TR 94–01, Revision 

2’’ of the NRC Safety Evaluation Report 

in NEI 94–01, Revision 2–A, dated 

October 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML100620847), as the implementing 

document for the performance-based 

Option B of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 

J. 

Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 326 for Unit 1 and 

309 for Unit 2. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15072A264; documents related 

to this amendment are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: Amendments 

revise the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30188). 

The supplemental letters dated 

September 30, 2014, December 16, 2014, 

January 15, 2015, and February 20, 

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 March 30, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 

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

1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: 

September 24, 2014, as supplemented 

by letter dated December 11, 2014. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment changes the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) and the Facility 

Operating License. The change deletes 

the Functional Unit ‘‘Cold Leg Injection, 

P–15’’ from TS 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered 

Safety Features Actuation System 

Instrumentation,’’ and changes License 

Condition 2.K, ‘‘Inadvertent Actuation 

of the Emergency Core Cooling System 

(ECCS).’’ 

Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 145. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15002A251; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

86: Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 6, 2015, (80 FR 525). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: 

November 7, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.1, Table 3–3, Item 

3.c concerning containment wide range 

radiation monitors to correct a 

typographical error introduced in TS 

Amendment No. 152. 

Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 281. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15035A203; 

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: January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2751). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated March 27, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 

and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendments: 

March 24, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments approved a change to 

revise Surveillance Requirements 

4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4, and 4.2.2.2.f associated 

with Power Distribution Limits 

Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.2.1, 

‘‘Axial Flux Difference (AFD),’’ and TS 

3/4.2.2, ‘‘Heat Flux Hot Channel 

Factor—FQ(Z).’’ 

Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 307 and 289. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML15063A293; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications and the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR 32770). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil 

C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) 

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: August 5, 

2014, revised by letter dated August 28, 

2014, and supplemented by letter dated 

November 3, 2014 (Non-Public). 

Description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the design of 

connections between reinforced 

concrete (RC) and steel plate concrete 

composite construction (SC) included in 

the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report and changes to 

the Technical Report, ‘‘APP–GW–GLR– 

602, AP1000 Shield Building Design 

Details for Select Wall and RC/SC 

Connections,’’ (prepared by 

Westinghouse Electric Company and 

reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission as part of the design 

certification rule). 

Date of issuance: December 16, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 21. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14339A717; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR 

58824). The supplemental letter dated 

November 3, 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 the 

Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil 

C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) 

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: June 20, 

2014, and supplemented by letter dated 

August 6, 2014. 

Description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report in regard to Tier 

2 and Tier 2* information related to fire 

area boundaries. These changes include: 

adding of three new fire zones in the 

middle annulus to provide fire barrier 

enclosures for the Class 1E Electrical 

Divisions B, C, and D containment 

penetrations; and eliminating the Class 

1E Electrical Division A enclosure and 

making the Division A containment 

penetration assemblies part of the 

existing middle annulus fire zone. 

Date of issuance: December 30, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 22. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14328A233; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 

64228). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 6, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 2 and December 

11, 2014, and February 3, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changed the licensing basis 

as described in the Final Safety Analysis 

Report (FSAR)-Standard Plant Section 

3.6.2.1.2.4, ‘‘ASME [American Society 

of Mechanical Engineers] Section III and 

Non-Nuclear Piping-Moderate-Energy,’’ 

and FSAR-Standard Plant Table 3.6–2, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20031 

‘‘Design Comparison to Regulatory 

Positions of Regulatory Guide 1.46, 

Revision 0, dated May 1973, titled 

‘Protection Against Pipe Whip Inside 

Containment,’ ’’ in particular regard to 

the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) 

piping installed in ASME Class 3 line 

segments of the essential service water 

system. Also, new Reference 25 is added 

to FSAR-Standard Plant Section 3.6.3 to 

cite the NRC-approved version of the 

HDPE requirements covered by Relief 

Request I3R–10 dated October 31, 2008. 

Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 211. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15064A028; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–30: The amendment revised 

the Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR 

15150). The supplements dated 

September 2 and December 11, 2014, 

and February 3, 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 March 31, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day 

of April 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

A. Louise Lund, 

Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08579 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028; NRC– 

2008–0441] 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric 

& Gas Company; Tier 1 Editorial and 

Consistency Changes 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Exemption and combined 

license amendment; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is granting an 

exemption to allow a departure from the 

certification information of Tier 1 of the 

generic design control document (DCD) 

and issuing License Amendment No. 23 

to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF–93 

and NPF–94. The COLs were issued to 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 

(SCE&G), and South Carolina Public 

Service Authority (the licensee), for 

construction and operation of the Virgil 

C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), 

Units 2 and 3 located in Fairfield 

County, South Carolina. 

The granting of the exemption allows 

the changes to Tier 1 information 

requested in the amendment. Because 

the acceptability of the exemption was 

determined in part by the acceptability 

of the amendment, the exemption and 

amendment are being issued 

concurrently. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2008–0441 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2008–0441. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• 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 

a document is referenced. The request 

for the amendment and exemption was 

submitted by the letter dated May 20, 

2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14140A637). The licensee 

supplemented this request by letter 

dated June 3, 2014 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14155A257). 

• 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Reyes, Office of New Reactors, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–3249; email: Ruth.Reyes@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The NRC is granting an exemption 

from the provisions of Paragraph B of 

Section III, ‘‘Scope and Contents,’’ of 

appendix D, ‘‘Design Certification Rule 

for the AP1000,’’ to part 52 of Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) and issuing License Amendment 

No. 23 to COLs, NPF–93 and NPF–94, 

to the licensee. The exemption is 

required by Paragraph A.4 of Section 

VIII, ‘‘Processes for Changes and 

Departures,’’ appendix D to 10 CFR part 

52 to allow the licensee to depart from 

Tier 1 information. With the requested 

amendment, the licensee sought 

changes to COL Appendix C and 

corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 

information to correct editorial errors 

and/or consistency errors (e.g., 

inconsistencies between Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (Tier 2) 

and Tier 1 information, and 

inconsistencies between information 

from different locations within Tier 1). 

Part of the justification for granting 

the exemption was provided by the 

review of the amendment. Because the 

exemption is necessary in order to issue 

the requested license amendment, the 

NRC granted the exemption and issued 

the amendment concurrently, rather 

than in sequence. This included issuing 

a combined safety evaluation containing 

the NRC staff’s review of both the 

exemption request and the license 

amendment. The exemption met all 

applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 

10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and 

52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was 

found to be acceptable as well. The 

combined safety evaluation is available 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14345B029. 

Identical exemption documents 

(except for referenced unit numbers and 

license numbers) were issued to the 

licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs 

NPF–93 and NPF–94). These documents 

can be found in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML14352A155 and 

ML14352A164, respectively. The 

exemption is reproduced (with the 

exception of abbreviated titles and 

additional citations) in Section II of this 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES