61658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and 

Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act 

have been met. 

85,423, Abbott Vascular, Redwood City, 

California. July 14, 2013. 

85,502, The ESAB Group, Inc., Florence, 

South Carolina. August 22, 2013. 

85,504, National Instruments 

Corporation, Austin, Texas. August 

25, 2013. 

85,512, Alsip Acquisition LLC., D.B.A. 

Future Mark Alsip, Alsip, Illinois. 

August 28, 2013. 

85,519, New England Paper Tube Co., 

Inc., Pawtucket, Rhode Island, 

September 2, 2013. 

Negative Determinations for Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, it has been 

determined that the requirements of 

246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for 

the reasons specified. 

None. 

Negative Determinations for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, the 

investigation revealed that the eligibility 

criteria for worker adjustment assistance 

have not been met for the reasons 

specified. 

Because the workers of the firm are 

not eligible to apply for TAA, the 

workers cannot be certified eligible for 

ATAA. 

The workers’ firm does not produce 

an article as required for certification 

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 

1974. 

85,427, MoneyGram Payment Systems, 

Inc., Lakewood, Colorado. 

85,436, PST, Inc., D/B/A Business 

Performance Services, Cypress, 

California. 

85,451, Fifth Third Mortgage Company, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Determinations Terminating 

Investigations of Petitions for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance 

After notice of the petitions was 

published in the Federal Register and 

on the Department’s Web site, as 

required by Section 221 of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 2271), the Department initiated 

investigations of these petitions. 

The following determinations 

terminating investigations were issued 

because the petitioner has requested 

that the petition be withdrawn. 

85,531, Regal Beloit, Springfield, 

Missouri. 

85,532, Pacific Interpreters, Portland, 

Oregon. 

The following determinations 

terminating investigations were issued 

because the petitioning groups of 

workers are covered by active 

certifications. Consequently, further 

investigation in these cases would serve 

no purpose since the petitioning group 

of workers cannot be covered by more 

than one certification at a time. 

85,457, LSI Corporation, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

85,520, Swisher International, Inc., 

Jacksonville, Florida. 

I hereby certify that the 

aforementioned determinations were 

issued during the period of September 

15, 2014 through September 19, 2014. 

These determinations are available on 

the Department’s Web site 

www.tradeact/taa/taa_search_form.cfm 

under the searchable listing of 

determinations or by calling the Office 

of Trade Adjustment Assistance toll free 

at 888–365–6822. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

September 2014. 

Michael W. Jaffe, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24274 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0224] 

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 September 

18, 2014 to October 1, 2014. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

September 30, 2014. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

November 13, 2014. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by December 15, 

2014. 

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–2014–0224. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

3WFN–06–A44M, 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: 

Janet C Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0224 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–2014–0224. 

• 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 61659 

• 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–2014– 

0224 in the subject line of your 

comment submission, in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://www.nrc.

gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

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 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/gettingstarted.html. System requirements for 

accessing the E-Submittal server are 

detailed in the NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for 

Electronic Submission,’’ which is 

available on the agency’s public Web 

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with the NRC’s 

guidance available on the NRC’s public 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. A filing is 

considered complete at the time the 

documents are submitted through the 

NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an 

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document 

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://www.

nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 

email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by 

a toll-free call at 1–866–672–7640. The 

NRC Meta System Help Desk is 

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

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://ehd1.

nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant 

to an order of the Commission, or the 

presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 61661 

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. 

Florida Power and Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey 

Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: July 8, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14205A278. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify the 

Technical Specifications by revising or 

adding surveillance requirements (SRs) 

to verify that the system locations 

susceptible to gas accumulation are 

sufficiently filled with water and to 

provide allowances that permit 

performance of the verification. The 

licensee proposed the changes to 

address NRC Generic Letter 2008–01, 

‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in 

Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 

Removal, and Containment Spray 

Systems’’ (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML072910759), as described in Revision 

2 of Technical Specification Task Force523, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing 

Gas Accumulation’’ (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13053A075). 

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 as 

follows: 

1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Increase in the Probability or 

Consequences of an Accident Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the Emergency 

Core Cooling Systems (ECCS), the Residual 

Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the 

Containment Spray (CS) System are not 

rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas 

and to provide allowances which permit 

performance of the revised verification. Gas 

accumulation in the subject systems is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The proposed SRs 

ensure that the subject systems continue to 

be capable to perform their assumed safety 

function and are not rendered inoperable due 

to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences 

of any accident previously evaluated are not 

significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the Proposed Change Create the 

Possibility of a New or Different Kind of 

Accident from any Accident Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, the 

RHR System, and the CS System are not 

rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas 

and to provide allowances which permit 

performance of the revised verification. The 

proposed change does not involve a physical 

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

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. In addition, the proposed 

change does not impose any new or different 

requirements that could initiate an accident. 

The proposed change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis and 

is consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Reduction in the Margin of 

Safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, RHR 

System, and CS System are not rendered 

inoperable due to accumulated gas and to 

provide allowances which permit 

performance of the revised verification. The 

proposed change adds new requirements to 

manage gas accumulation in order to ensure 

that the subject systems are capable of 

performing their assumed safety functions. 

The proposed SRs are more comprehensive 

than the current SRs and will ensure that the 

assumptions of the safety analysis are 

protected. The proposed change does not 

adversely affect any current plant safety 

margins or the reliability of the equipment 

assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, 

there are no changes being made to any safety 

analysis assumptions, safety limits, or 

limiting safety system settings that would 

adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 

proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s 

analysis and, based on this review, it 

appears that the three standards of 10 

CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the 

NRC staff proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light Company, 700 

Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno 

Beach, Florida 33408–0420. 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. 

Regner. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, South Carolina Public 

Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395, 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS), Unit 1, Fairfield County, 

South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: August 

27, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14245A408. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment requests 

approval for a change to the VCSNS 

licensing basis to incorporate a 

supplemental analysis to the steam 

generator tube rupture (SGTR) accident. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change, to adopt a new 

analytical method to evaluate the effects of a 

SGTR, does not affect any accident initiators 

or precursors since there is no physical 

change to plant systems, structures and 

components [SSCs] or manner in which they 

are operated during normal operation. As 

such, the proposed change does not increase 

the probability of an accident. 

The ability of operators to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident is also not 

diminished as there is no impact on the 

design of mitigating plant systems that would 

reduce their design capability or increase 

their failure probability during normal 

operation or accident conditions. 

The present methodology for calculating 

mass transfer (i.e., from the reactor coolant 

system to the secondary side via the failed 

SG [steam generator] tube) for input to the 

radiological consequences of a postulated 

SGTR is conservative when compared with 

results from the new methodology. As such, 

the existing licensing basis methodology for 

calculating mass transfer will be retained. 

The calculated doses for the SGTR event for 

use in the FSAR [final safety analysis report] 

will be updated to reflect the results of the 

updated calculations with the reported doses 

to include 5 percent margin. Although 

slightly higher than the current analyses of 

record, the updated doses are well within 

regulatory limits and the increases are not 

more than minimal. Consistent with VCSNS’s 

current licensing basis, the dose calculations 

conform to the guidance presented in 10 CFR 

50.67, RG 1.183, and Standard Review Plan 

[(SRP)] Section 15.0.1. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

The use of this previously approved 

methodology (WCAP–10698–P–A) more 

accurately calculates the plant response to an 

SGTR event. The improved accuracy of the 

new methodology provides valuable 

information related to operator actions and 

associated timing. Such accurate transient 

response information enables enhancements 

to be made to the emergency operating 

procedures (EOPs) and allows future changes 

to be more effectively assessed for impact. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

consequences or probability of occurrence of 

an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not impact the 

design of affected plant systems, involve a 

physical alteration to the systems, or change 

to the way in which systems are currently 

operated, such that previously unanalyzed 

SGTRs would now occur. Since the design 

function and mode of operation of SSCs in 

the facility prior to a postulated accident are 

unchanged, the change to adopt a new 

analytical method to evaluate the effects of a 

tube rupture does not introduce any new 

malfunctions. Its use is beneficial in that it 

allows for a more accurate prediction of the 

plant response following a postulated SGTR 

to determine the time available for operator 

actions to prevent overfilling the affected SG. 

Thus, the proposed change does not affect or 

create new accident initiators or precursors 

or create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The approval of the proposed change will 

not result in any modifications to affected 

plant systems that would reduce their design 

capabilities during normal operating and 

accident conditions. By using the WCAP– 

10698–P–A methodology, a more accurate 

SGTR response is calculated. The improved 

understanding of the transient response 

enables enhancements to the EOPs, which 

provide further assurance the SSCs required 

for accident mitigation are available and that 

required actions can be accomplished in a 

time frame to prevent overfill of a ruptured 

SG. 

The SGTR dose consequences to be 

reported in the FSAR are well within the 

acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 

50.67, RG 1.183, and SRP 15.0.1. Given this, 

there is no 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. Hagood 

Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, 

Columbia, South Carolina 29218. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Docket Nos.: 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 

3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

22, 2014, and revised by the letter dated 

September 23, 2014. Publicly-available 

versions are available in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML14234A423 and 

ML14266A656, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The license amendment request consists 

of changes to the Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of 

departures from the incorporated plantspecific Design Control Document 

(DCD) Tier 2 information and involves 

changes to Tier 2* and Tier 1 

information, with corresponding 

changes associated with combined 

license (COL) Appendix C information. 

The proposed changes include: 

(a) Installation of an additional nonsafety-related battery; 

(b) Revision to the annex building 

internal configuration by converting a 

shift turnover room to a battery room, 

adding an additional battery equipment 

room, and moving a fire area wall; 

(c) Increase in the height of a room in 

the annex building; and 

(d) Increase in thicknesses of certain 

floor of the annex building. 

In addition, the proposed changes 

also include reconfiguring existing 

rooms and related room, wall, and 

access path changes. 

Because this proposed change 

requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the 

licensee also requested an exemption 

from the requirements of the Generic 

DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 

52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed additions of a new 

nonsafety-related battery, battery room and 

battery equipment room, the room height 

increase, the floor thickness changes, the 

relocation of a non-structural internal wall, 

and the associated wall, room and corridor 

changes within the annex building do not 

adversely affect the fire loading analysis 

durations of the affected fire zones and areas 

(i.e., the calculated fire durations remain less 

than their design values). Thus, the fire loads 

analysis is not adversely affected (i.e., 

analysis results remain acceptable). The safe 

shutdown fire analysis is not affected. The 

proposed changes to the structural 

configuration, including anticipated 

equipment loading, room height, and floor 

thickness are accounted for in the updated 

structural configuration model that was used 

to analyze the Annex Building for safe 

shutdown earthquake (SSE) and other design 

loads and load combinations, thus the 

structural analysis is not adversely affected. 

The structural analysis description and 

results in the UFSAR are unchanged. The 

relocated internal Annex Building wall is 

non-structural, thus this change does not 

affect the structural analyses for the Annex 

Building. The proposed changes do not 

involve any accident initiating event or 

component failure, thus the probabilities of 

the accidents previously evaluated are not 

affected. The rooms affected by the proposed 

changes do not contain or interface with 

safety-related equipment, thus the proposed 

changes would not affect any safety-related 

equipment or accident mitigating function. 

The radioactive material source terms and 

release paths used in the safety analyses are 

unchanged, thus the radiological releases in 

the accident analyses are not affected. 

With the conversion of an annex building 

room to a battery room, the building volume 

serviced by nuclear island nonradioactive 

ventilation system decreases by approximate 

five percent. This reduced volume is used in 

the post-accident main control room dose 

portion of the UFSAR LOCA [loss-of-coolant 

accident] radiological analysis. However, the 

volume decrease is not sufficient to change 

the calculated main control room dose 

reported in the UFSAR, and control room 

habitability is not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed additions of a new 

nonsafety-related battery, battery room and 

battery equipment room, the room height 

increase, the floor thickness changes, the 

relocation of a non-structural internal wall, 

and their associated wall, room and corridor 

changes do not change fire barrier 

performance, and the fire loading analyses 

results remain acceptable. The room height 

and floor thickness changes are consistent 

with the annex building configuration used 

in the building’s structural analysis. The 

relocated internal wall is non-structural, thus 

the structural analyses for the annex building 

are not affected. The affected rooms and 

associated equipment do not interface with 

components that contain radioactive 

material. The affected rooms do not contain 

equipment whose failure could initiate an 

accident. The proposed changes do not create 

a new fault or sequence of events that could 

result in a radioactive material release. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 61663 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed additions of a new 

nonsafety-related battery, battery room and 

battery equipment room, the room height 

increase, the floor thickness changes, the 

relocation of a non-structural internal wall, 

and their associated wall, room and corridor 

changes do not change the fire barrier 

performance of the affected fire areas. The 

affected rooms do not contain safety-related 

equipment, and the safe shutdown fire 

analysis is not affected. Because the proposed 

change does not alter compliance with the 

construction codes to which the annex 

building is designed and constructed, the 

proposed changes to the structural 

configuration, including anticipated 

equipment loading, room height, and floor 

thickness do not adversely affect the safety 

margins associated with the seismic Category 

II structural capability of the annex building. 

The floor areas and amounts of 

combustible material loads in affected fire 

zones and areas do not significantly change, 

such that their fire duration times remain 

within their two-hour design value, thus the 

safety margins associated with the fire loads 

analysis are not affected. 

No safety analysis or design basis 

acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 

exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no 

margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Blach & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence 

Burkhart. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: August 

27, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14246A190. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed license amendment 

requests changes to the Technical 

Specification (TS) to revise TS Figures 

3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2, for the North Anna 

Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System 

(RCS) Heatup Limitations and RCS 

Cooldown Limitations, respectively, for 

clarification and to be fully 

representative of the allowable 

operating conditions during RCS startup 

and cooldown evolutions. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed clarification of TS Figures 

3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not involve a 

physical change to the plant and does not 

change the manner in which plant systems or 

components are operated or controlled. The 

proposed change does not alter or prevent the 

ability of structures, system, and components 

(SSCs) to perform their intended function to 

mitigate the consequences of an initiating 

event within the assumed acceptance limits. 

The P/T [pressure/temperature] curves on TS 

Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being 

modified and remain valid. 

Therefore, the probability of occurrence of 

an accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased by the proposed 

amendment. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed clarification of TS Figures 

3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not involve any 

physical alteration of plant equipment; 

consequently, no new or different types of 

equipment will be installed. The proposed 

change does not adversely affect accident 

initiators or precursors nor alter the design 

assumptions, conditions, or configuration of 

the facility. The P/T curves on TS Figures 

3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being modified, 

and the basic operation of installed plant 

systems and components is unchanged. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The existing RCS P/T curves on TS Figures 

3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being modified. 

The proposed clarification of TS Figures 

3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not alter any plant 

equipment, does not change the manner in 

which the plant is operated or controlled, 

and has no impact on any safety analysis 

assumptions. The proposed change does not 

alter the manner in which safety limits, 

limiting safety system settings, or limiting 

conditions for operation are determined. The 

proposed change does not result in plant 

operation in a configuration outside the 

analyses or design basis and does not 

adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shut down the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

III. Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses, 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination, and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear 

Power Station, Plymouth County, 

Massachusetts 

Date of amendment request: 

September 11, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14258A179. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specification 4.3.4.b to reflect the 

removal of the energy absorbing pad 

from the spent fuel pool and the 

installation of a leveling platform. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: September 

22, 2014 (79 FR 56608). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

October 26, 2014 (public comments); 

November 22, 2014 (hearing requests). 

IV. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61664 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

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

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270 and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 

2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 24, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 30, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the ONS Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to 

clarify the Quality Assurance (QA) 

requirements for Standby Shutdown 

Facility (SSF) equipment. The proposed 

change revises ONS UFSAR Section 

3.1.1.1 to clarify that the QA 

requirements applied to certain 

equipment relied upon to perform the 

SSF function that existed prior to the 

construction of the SSF, will be 

consistent with the original QA 

requirements for that equipment. 

Date of Issuance: September 25, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 387, 389, and 388. 

A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14254A246. Documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: 

Amendments revised the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR 

9493). The supplemental letter dated 

June 30, 2014, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as noticed, and did not 

change the staff’s 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 September 25, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: May 1, 

2014, as supplemented by letter dated 

August 21, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification 2.0, ‘‘Safety Limits (SLs),’’ 

by changing the safety limit minimum 

critical power ratio for both single and 

dual recirculation loop operation. 

Date of issuance: September 30, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 307. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14258B189; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–59: The amendment revised 

the License and the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45487). 

The supplemental letter dated August 

21, 2014, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination (NSHC) as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment and final NSHC 

determination is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated September 30, 2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

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

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 

Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 26, 2012, as supplemented by 

letters dated May 28 and August 28, 

2013. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment deleted Paragraph 2.C.(32) 

of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 

1, Facility Operating License, which 

currently prohibits operating with 

partial feedwater heating for the 

purpose of extending the fuel cycle at 

rated power conditions. 

Date of issuance: September 25, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No: 199. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14162A378; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

29: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 12, 2013 (78 FR 

9948). The supplemental letters dated 

May 28 and August 28, 2013, 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 September 25, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 

and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment requests: July 25, 

2012, as supplemented by letters dated 

June 1, October 21, and November 14, 

2013. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification 3.1.3 to allow the 

normally required near end-of-life 

Moderator Temperature Coefficient 

(MTC) measurement to not be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 61665 

performed under certain conditions. If 

these conditions are met, the MTC 

measurement would be replaced by a 

calculated value. 

Date of issuance: September 17, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented with 

60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 291 and 178. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14245A151; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–66 and NPF–73: Amendments 

revised the Facility Operating License 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 4, 2012 (77 FR 

53929). The supplements dated June 1, 

October 21, and November 14, 2013, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 17, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of amendment request: August 

29, 2013, as supplemented by letters 

dated May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, and 

August 21, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Duane Arnold 

Energy Center Technical Specifications 

Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.8.4.1 

and 3.8.4.6 by changing the battery 

terminal voltage, the battery charger 

voltage, and amperage provided in these 

SRs to account for the replacement of 

the existing 58-cell 125 volts direct 

current (VDC) batteries with new 60-cell 

125 VDC batteries. 

Date of issuance: September 26, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 289. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14259A292; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–49: The amendment revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 24, 2013 (78 FR 

77732). The supplemental letters dated 

May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, and August 

21, 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 September 26, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 

(SONGS), Units 2 and 3, San Diego 

County, California 

Date of amendment request: October 

21, 2013, as supplemented by letters 

dated June 5, 2014, August 11, 2014, 

and September 15, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised and removed 

certain requirements from the Section 5, 

‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ portions of 

the SONGS Units 2 and 3 Technical 

Specifications (TSs) that are no longer 

applicable to the units in a permanently 

defueled condition. Specifically, the 

amendments revised TS Sections 5.1, 

‘‘Responsibility,’’ 5.2, ‘‘Organization,’’ 

and 5.3, ‘‘Facility Staff Qualifications,’’ 

to reflect new staffing and training 

requirements for operating staff. 

Date of issuance: September 30, 2014. 

Effective date: Upon issuance, to be 

implemented within 60 days of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–227; Unit 

3–220. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14183B240; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

10 and NPF–15: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 24, 2013 (78 FR 

77733). The supplemental letters dated 

June 5, 2014, August 11, 2014, and 

September 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 amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 20, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated February 24 and June 12, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Emergency Plan by 

revising certain Emergency Action Level 

thresholds by removing Main Steam 

Line radiation monitors RE–13119, RE– 

13120, RE–13121, and RE–13122 to 

address limitations of these monitors. 

Date of issuance: September 30, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 172 and 154. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14170A911; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised 

the Emergency Plan. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 17, 2013 (78 FR 

57184). The supplemental letters dated 

on February 24, and June 12, 2014, 

provided additional information 

clarifying the LAR, did not expand the 

scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration as published in 

the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses and Final 

Determination of No Significant 

Hazards Consideration and 

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent 

Public Announcement or Emergency 

Circumstances) 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application for the 

amendment complies with the 

standards and requirements of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61666 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations. The Commission has 

made appropriate findings as required 

by the Act and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, 

which are set forth in the license 

amendment. 

Because of exigent or emergency 

circumstances associated with the date 

the amendment was needed, there was 

not time for the Commission to publish, 

for public comment before issuance, its 

usual notice of consideration of 

issuance of amendment, proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination, and opportunity for a 

hearing. 

For exigent circumstances, the 

Commission has either issued a Federal 

Register notice providing opportunity 

for public comment or has used local 

media to provide notice to the public in 

the area surrounding a licensee’s facility 

of the licensee’s application and of the 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

The Commission has applied the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made 

a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The basis for this 

determination is contained in the 

documents related to this action. 

Accordingly, the amendments have 

been issued and made effective as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the application for 

amendment, (2) the amendment to 

Facility Operating License or Combined 

License, as applicable, and (3) the 

Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment, as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

The Commission is also offering an 

opportunity for a hearing with respect to 

the issuance of the amendment. Within 

60 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, any person(s) whose interest 

may be affected by this action may file 

a request for a hearing and a petition to 

intervene with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license or combined license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 

person(s) should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 

the NRC’s PDR, located at One White 

Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, and electronically on 

the Internet at the NRC’s Web site, 

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

accessing the document, contact the 

PDR’s Reference staff at 1–800–397– 

4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to 

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

hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

is filed by the above date, the 

Commission or a presiding officer 

designated by the Commission or by the 

Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. The 

petition must include sufficient 

information to show that a genuine 

dispute exists with the applicant on a 

material issue of law or fact. 

Contentions shall be limited to matters 

within the scope of the amendment 

under consideration. The contention 

must be one which, if proven, would 

entitle the petitioner to relief. A 

requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy 

these requirements with respect to at 

least one contention will not be 

permitted to participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. Since the Commission has 

made a final determination that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 61667 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, if a hearing is 

requested, it will not stay the 

effectiveness of the amendment. Any 

hearing held would take place while the 

amendment is in effect. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the Internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

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/gettingstarted.html. System requirements for 

accessing the E-Submittal server are 

detailed in the NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for 

Electronic Submission,’’ which is 

available on the agency’s public Web 

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://www.

nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 

email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by 

a toll-free call at 1–866–672–7640. The 

NRC Meta System Help Desk is 

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

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://ehd1.

nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant 

to an order of the Commission, or the 

presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

September 15, 2014, as supplemented 

by letter dated September 18, 2014. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment inserts a temporary 

change to Surveillance Requirement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61668 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

3.8.6.6 by reducing the required Battery 

22 capacity from 85 percent to 80 

percent through March 6, 2015. The 

change is necessary because questions 

have been raised about the continued 

operability of the battery until the next 

scheduled surveillance test that is due 

by March 7, 2015. The questions are 

based on a concern that the Battery 22 

will degrade and no longer meet 

Surveillance Requirement 3.8.6.6 before 

the next scheduled test and therefore 

must be demonstrated to meet the 

criteria to ensure strict technical 

specification compliance. 

Date of issuance: September 24, 2014. 

Effective date: As of its issuance date 

and shall be implemented upon 

approval. 

Amendment No.: 278. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14265A329; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

26: The Amendment revised the 

technical specifications and the license. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): Yes. A notice 

was published in the Journal News 

located in White Plains, New York, on 

September 19, 20, and 21, 2014. The 

notice provided an opportunity to 

submit comments on the Commission’s 

proposed NSHC determination. No 

comments have been received. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of exigent 

circumstances, state consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated September 

24, 2014. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, 

Assistant General Counsel, Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton 

Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: 

September 10, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to incorporate a 

one-time Completion Time extension in 

TS 3.4.15, ‘‘RCS [reactor coolant system] 

Leakage Detection Instrumentation.’’ 

The amendment added a Note to the 30- 

day Completion Time of Required 

Action A.2 to extend the Completion 

Time to allow the continued operation 

for Cycle 20 with the containment sump 

level and flow monitoring system 

inoperable until startup from a plant 

shutdown or startup from Refueling 

Outage 20 (spring 2015). 

Date of issuance: September 29, 2014. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of the date of issuance. 

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

Accession No. ML14259A339; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–42. The amendment revised 

the Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): Yes. The Topeka 

Capital-Journal newspaper on 

September 18–20, 2014, and the Wichita 

Eagle newspaper on September 22–24, 

2014. The notice provided an 

opportunity to submit comments on the 

Commission’s proposed NSHC 

determination. No comments have been 

received. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of exigent 

circumstances, state consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated September 

29, 2014. 

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 

2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 

20037. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. 

Oesterle. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of October 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

A. Louise Lund, 

Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24355 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362; NRC– 

2014–0223] 

Southern California Edison Company 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 2 and 3 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt; availability; 

public meeting; and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: On September 23, 2014, the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) received the Post-Shutdown 

Decommissioning Activities Report 

(PSDAR) and the Site Specific 

Decommissioning Cost Estimate (DCE), 

dated September 23, 2014, for the San 

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 

(SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The PSDAR, 

which includes the DCE, provides an 

overview of Southern California Edison 

Company’s (SCE’s, or the licensee’s) 

planned decommissioning activities, 

schedule, projected costs, and 

environmental impacts for SONGS 

Units 2 and 3. The NRC will hold a 

public meeting to discuss the PSDAR 

and DCE and receive comments. 

DATES: Submit comments by December 

22, 2014. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received before this date. 

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–2014–0223. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

3WFN–06–A44M, 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: 

Thomas Wengert, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–4037, 

email: Thomas.Wengert@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0223 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–2014–0223. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES