67196 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 

evaluation may also include assessment 

of the progress of awarded proposals. 

The majority of these meetings will take 

place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, Virginia 22230. 

These meetings will be closed to the 

public. The proposals being reviewed 

include information of a proprietary or 

confidential nature, including technical 

information; financial data, such as 

salaries; and personal information 

concerning individuals associated with 

the proposals. These matters are exempt 

under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 

Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF 

will continue to review the agenda and 

merits of each meeting for overall 

compliance of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. 

These closed proposal review 

meetings will not be announced on an 

individual basis in the Federal Register. 

NSF intends to publish a notice similar 

to this on a quarterly basis. For an 

advance listing of the closed proposal 

review meetings that include the names 

of the proposal review panel and the 

time, date, place, and any information 

on changes, corrections, or 

cancellations, please visit the NSF Web 

site: http://www.nsf.gov/events/. This 

information may also be requested by 

telephoning, 703/292–8687. 

Dated: November 6, 2014 

Suzanne Plimpton, 

Acting Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26697 Filed 11–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting; Finance, 

Budget & Program Committee Meeting 

of the Board of Directors 

TIME & DATE: 12:00 p.m., Monday, 

November 17, 2014 

PLACE: NeighborWorks America— 

Gramlich Boardroom, 999 North Capitol 

Street NE., Washington DC 20002 

STATUS: Open (with the exception of 

Executive Session) 

CONTACT PERSON: Jeffrey Bryson, 

General Counsel/Secretary, (202) 760– 

4101; jbryson@nw.org. 

AGENDA: 

I. Call to Order 

II. Executive Session: Transition Update 

III. Executive Session: Bank of America 

Settlement Update 

IV. Success Measures Data Systems 

Approval 

V. Sustainable Homeownership 

Procurement 

VI. Organizational Underwriting & 

Grants to Network 

VII. New Strategic Plan 

VIII. Financial Report 

IX. Management Updates 

X. Adjournment 

Jeffrey T. Bryson, 

EVP & General Counsel/Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26849 Filed 11–7–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7570–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0243] 

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 October 16, 

2014 to October 29, 2014. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

October 28, 2014. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

December 12, 2014. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by January 12, 

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–2014–0243. 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: 

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–2014– 

0243 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–2014–0243. 

• 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–2014– 

0243 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 67197 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

Part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

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

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

by the above date, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
67198 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 67199 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– 

341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: 

September 16, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14259A564. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the technical specifications (TS) 

by relocating specific surveillance 

frequencies to a licensee-controlled 

program with the adoption of Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF)—425, 

Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance 

Frequencies to Licensee Control— 

RITSTF Initiative 5b’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML080280275). 

Additionally, the change would add a 

new program, the Surveillance 

Frequency Control Program (SFCP), to 

Section 5.5, ‘‘Programs and Manuals’’ of 

the TS. 

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 any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes relocate the 

specified frequencies for periodic 

surveillance requirements to licensee control 

under a new Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The systems and 

components required by the TSs for which 

the surveillance frequencies are relocated are 

still required to be operable, meet the 

acceptance criteria for the surveillance 

requirements, and be capable of performing 

any mitigation function assumed in the 

accident analysis. As a result, the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents result from 

utilizing the proposed changes. The changes 

do not involve a physical alteration of the 

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

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. In addition, the changes do not 

impose any new or different requirements. 

The changes do not alter assumptions made 

in the safety analysis. The proposed changes 

are consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions and current plant operating 

practice. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The design, operation, testing methods, 

and acceptance criteria for systems, 

structures, and components (SSCs), specified 

in applicable codes and standards (or 

alternatives approved for use by the NRC) 

will continue to be met as described in the 

plant licensing basis (including the final 

safety analysis report and bases to TS), since 

these are not affected by changes to the 

surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is 

no impact to safety analysis acceptance 

criteria as described in the plant licensing 

basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated 

surveillance frequency, DTE Electric 

Company (DTE) will perform a probabilistic 

risk evaluation using the guidance contained 

in NRC approved NEI 04–10, Revision 1, in 

accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04–10, 

Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable 

acceptance guidelines and methods for 

evaluating the risk increase of proposed 

changes to surveillance frequencies 

consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. Maters, 

DTE Energy, General Counsel— 

Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, 

Detroit, MI 48226–1279. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York 

County, South Carolina; Docket Nos. 

50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina; and Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: July 21, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14212A502. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

licensed operator training requirements 

to be consistent with the National 

Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT) 

program. Additionally, the amendment 

would make administrative changes to 

Technical Specification Sections 5.1, 

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

5.3, ‘‘Unit Staff Qualifications’’; 5.5, 

‘‘Programs and Manuals’’; and for 

Catawba and McGuire, Section 5.7, 

‘‘High Radiation Area.’’ 

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, with NRC edits in square 

brackets, 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 Technical Specification (TS) 

changes regarding organization, unit staff 

responsibility and unit staff qualifications are 

administrative changes to clarify the current 

requirements for Duke Energy’s licensed 

operator qualifications and training program. 

With this change, the TSs continue to meet 

the current requirements of 10 CFR 55. 

Although licensed operator qualifications 

and training may have an indirect impact on 

accidents previously evaluated, the [Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)] considered 

this impact during the rulemaking process, 

and by promulgation of the revised 10 CFR 

55 rule, concluded that this impact remains 

acceptable as long as the licensed operator 

training programs are certified to be 

accredited and are based on a systems 

approach to training. The proposed TS 

change takes credit for the National Academy 

for Nuclear Training (NANT) accreditation of 

the licensed operator training program. 

The proposed TS change regarding 

responsibility, organization and high 

radiation area is administrative in nature to 

reflect the current titles and responsibilities 

of station personnel and is consistent with 

Standard Technical Specifications (STS). 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously analyzed. 

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 TS changes are 

administrative changes to clarify the current 

requirements for Duke Energy’s licensed 

operator qualifications and training program 

and to conform to the revised 10 CFR 55. 

Similar to the discussion above, although 

licensed operator qualifications and training 

may have an indirect impact on the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated, the [NRC] considered this impact 

during the rulemaking process, and by 

promulgation of the revised rule concluded 

that this impact remains acceptable as long 

as licensed operator training programs are 

certified to be accredited and based on a 

systems approach to training. As previously 

noted, the Duke Energy licensed operator 

training program is accredited by NANT and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
67200 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 

is based on a systems approach to training. 

The proposed TS change takes credit for the 

NANT accreditation of the licensed operator 

training program. 

The proposed TS change regarding 

responsibility, organization and high 

radiation area does not impact any plant 

systems that are accident initiators nor does 

the proposed change adversely impact any 

accident mitigating system. No physical 

changes are being made to the plant. This 

change is administrative in nature to reflect 

the current titles and responsibilities of 

station personnel and to be consistent with 

STS. 

The proposed amendment does not impact 

plant design, hardware, system operation or 

procedures, and therefore does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in the margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed [TS] change regarding unit 

staff qualifications is an administrative 

change to clarify the current requirements 

applicable to Duke Energy’s licensed operator 

qualifications and training program. With 

this change, the TS continue to meet the 

current requirements of 10 CFR 55. Although 

licensed operator qualifications and training 

may have an indirect impact on accidents 

previously evaluated, the NRC considered 

this impact during the rulemaking process, 

and by promulgation of the revised 10 CFR 

55 rule, concluded that this impact remains 

acceptable as long as the licensed operator 

training programs are certified to be 

accredited and are based on a systems 

approach to training. As noted previously, 

the Duke Energy licensed operator training 

program is accredited by NANT and is based 

on a systems approach to training. 

The NRC has concluded per NUREG–1262, 

that the standards and guidelines provided 

by the Institute for Nuclear Power 

Operations’ NANT are equivalent to those 

put forth or endorsed by the NRC. As a result, 

maintaining a NANT accredited, systems 

approach based licensed operator training 

program is equivalent to maintaining an NRC 

approved licensed operator training program. 

Furthermore, the NRC published Regulatory 

Issue Summary (RIS) 2001–001 to familiarize 

licensees with the NRC’s current guidelines 

for the qualification and training of Reactor 

Operator and Senior Operator license 

applicants. This document again 

acknowledges that the NANT guidelines for 

education and experience outline acceptable 

methods for implementing the NRC’s 

regulations in this area. The margin of safety 

is maintained by virtue of maintaining the 

NANT accredited licensed operator training 

program. 

The proposed TS change regarding 

responsibility, organization and high 

radiation area is administrative in nature to 

reflect the current titles and responsibilities 

of station personnel and is consistent with 

STS. Systems and components are not 

impacted and therefore are capable of 

performing as designed. The performance of 

fission product barriers will not be impacted 

by the proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

Based on the above discussion, Duke 

Energy concludes that the proposed 

amendment presents no significant hazards 

consideration under the standards set forth in 

10 CFR 50.92(c) and, accordingly, a finding 

of ‘‘no significant hazards consideration’’ is 

justified. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 

Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Corporation, 526 South Church Street— 

EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station (CGS), 

Benton County, Washington 

Date of amendment request: August 

12, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated September 9, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML14234A457, and 

ML14268A233, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the CGS 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to riskinform requirements regarding selected 

Required Action end states by 

incorporating TS Task Force (TSTF) 

traveler TSTF–423, Revision 1, 

‘‘Technical Specifications End States, 

NEDC–32988–A.’’ The Notice of 

Availability for TSTF–423, Revision 1, 

was published in the Federal Register 

on February 18, 2011 (76 FR 9164). 

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 allows a change to 

certain required end states when the TS 

Completion Times for remaining in power 

operation will be exceeded. Most of the 

requested technical specification (TS) 

changes are to permit an end state of hot 

shutdown (Mode 3) rather than an end state 

of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the 

current TS. The request was limited to: (1) 

Those end states where entry into the 

shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) 

entry is initiated by inoperability of a single 

train of equipment or a restriction on a plant 

operational parameter, unless otherwise 

stated in the applicable TS, and (3) the 

primary purpose is to correct the initiating 

condition and return to power operation as 

soon as is practical. Risk insights from both 

the qualitative and quantitative risk 

assessments were used in specific TS 

assessments. Such assessments are 

documented in Section 6 of topical report 

NEDC–32988–A, Revision 2, ‘‘Technical 

Justification to Support Risk Informed 

Modification to Selected Required Action 

End States for BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] 

Plants.’’ They provide an integrated 

discussion of deterministic and probabilistic 

Issues, focusing on specific TSs, which are 

used to support the proposed TS end state 

and associated restrictions. The risk insights 

support the conclusions of the specific TS 

assessments. Therefore, the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased, if at all. The 

consequences of an accident after adopting 

TSTF–423 are no different than the 

consequences of an accident prior to 

adopting TSTF–423. Therefore, the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly affected by 

this change. The addition of a requirement to 

assess and manage the risk introduced by this 

change will further minimize possible 

concerns. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant Increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change amendment 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed). 

If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a 

change to certain required end states when 

the TS Completion Times for remaining in 

power operation are exceeded (i.e., entry into 

hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to 

repair equipment) will not introduce new 

failure modes or effects and will not, in the 

absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an 

accident whose consequences exceed the 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 

assess and manage the risk introduced by this 

change and the commitment by Energy 

Northwest to adhere to the guidance in 

TSTF–IG–05–02, ‘‘Implementation Guidance 

for TSTF–423, Revision 1, ‘Technical 

Specifications End States, NEDC–32988–A,’ ’’ 

will further minimize possible concerns. 

Thus, based on the above, this change does 

not create the possibility of a new or 

different-kind of accident from an accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change allows, for some 

systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than 

cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is 

assessed and managed. The BWROG’s [BWR 

Owners Group’s] risk assessment approach is 

comprehensive and follows NRC staff 

guidance as documented in Regulatory 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 67201 

Guides (RG) 1.174 and 1.177. In addition, the 

analyses show that the criteria of the threetiered approach for allowing TS changes are 

met. The risk impact of the proposed TS 

changes was assessed following the threetiered approach recommended in RG 1.177. 

A risk assessment was performed to justify 

the proposed TS changes. The net change to 

the margin of safety is insignificant. 

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: William A. 

Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20006– 

3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), 

West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: July 9, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14212A396. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would modify the RBS 

Surveillance Requirements (SRs) related 

to Technical Specification 3.8.1, ‘‘AC 

[Alternating Current] Sources— 

Operating.’’ Specifically, the proposed 

changes will lower the upper bound of 

the frequency SR Acceptance Criteria 

Tolerance Band (ACTB), lower the 

upper bound of the voltage SR ACTB for 

diesel generator (DG) 1A and DG 1B 

(existing DG 1C voltage SR ACTB is 

retained), and raise the lower bound of 

the test load SR ACTB. 

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 EDGs [emergency diesel generators] 

are not initiators for accidents evaluated in 

the USAR [Updated Safety Analysis Report]. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

capability of the EDGs or their supporting 

systems to start, load and perform their 

intended functions as described in the USAR. 

The proposed changes do not impact the 

initiators of analyzed events, nor do they 

impact the mitigation of accidents. 

The proposed changes enable SR testing to 

demonstrate sufficient margin to ensure that 

the EDGs and equipment being powered by 

the EDGs will function as required to 

mitigate an accident as described in the 

USAR. Thus, the EDGs will be capable of 

performing their accident mitigation function 

as described in the USAR, and there is no 

impact on the consequences of accident 

analyses. 

The proposed changes increase the 

minimum EDG test loads, but the upper 

limits of the test loads are not changed. 

Furthermore, the test program (number and 

type of SR starts, test loads and run length) 

is not changed. Therefore, the effect of the 

proposed changes on EDG wear and/or 

reliability is negligible, and the proposed 

changes will not reduce EDG reliability from 

the current value of 95%. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve any 

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

or different type of equipment will be 

installed), or a change in the methods 

governing EDG operation. The changes 

ensure margin between the EDG SR test loads 

and the EDG maximum calculated loads and 

that the EDGs operate as assumed in the 

accident analyses. 

The purposes of the EDG surveillance tests 

are to confirm the capability of each EDG to 

start and achieve the minimum conditions 

required to accept the loads in the accident 

analysis. No changes are being made in 

operating philosophy, testing frequency, how 

EDGs operate or how EDGs are physically 

tested. The proposed changes do not affect 

the EDGs’ ability to supply minimum voltage 

and frequency within 10 seconds (DG 1A and 

DG 1B), 13 seconds (DG 1C) or the minimum 

steady state voltage and frequency. The EDGs 

will continue to perform their intended 

safety function in accordance with the safety 

analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do 

not affect safety analysis assumptions. 

The proposed changes do not degrade the 

EDGs, the circuits connected to the EDGs or 

the equipment powered by the EDGs. 

Therefore, no new failure modes or effects 

are introduced that could create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

initiators of analyzed events, nor do they 

affect the mitigation of accidents. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes enable SR testing to 

demonstrate sufficient margin between 

demonstrated EDG capability in the 

surveillance tests and maximum calculated 

EDG loads to ensure that the EDGs and 

equipment being powered by the EDGs will 

function as required to mitigate an accident 

as described in the USAR. Thus the proposed 

changes do not involve a significant 

reduction in the EDG electrical load margin. 

The proposed changes increase the 

minimum EDG test loads, but the upper 

limits of the test loads are not changed. 

Furthermore, the test program (number and 

type of SR starts, test loads and run length) 

is not changed. Therefore, the effect of the 

proposed changes on EDG wear and/or 

reliability is negligible and the proposed 

changes do not involve a significant 

reduction in the EDG physical margin. 

The margin of safety is related to the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to perform their design 

functions during and following an accident 

situation. These barriers include the fuel 

cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the 

containment system. The proposed changes 

do not directly affect these barriers, nor do 

they involve any adverse impact on the EDGs 

that serve to support these barriers in the 

event of an accident concurrent with a loss 

of offsite power. The proposed changes do 

not affect the EDG’s capabilities to provide 

emergency power to plant equipment that 

mitigates the consequences of the accident. 

In summary: the proposed changes have no 

affect the ability of the EDGs to start and 

load; no change is made to the accident 

analysis assumptions; no margin of safety is 

reduced as part of this change; and the 

margin between the calculated emergency 

loads and minimum test load is ensured. 

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: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas 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 application for amendments: 

September 3, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14247A522. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specifications to 

eliminate the Main Steam Line 

Radiation Monitor (MSLRM) from 

initiating: (1) A Reactor Protection 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
67202 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 

System automatic reactor scram; and (2) 

a Primary Containment Isolation System 

isolation including automatic closure of 

the Main Steam Line Isolation Valves 

(MSIVs), Main Steam Line (MSL) drain 

valves, MSL sample line valves, 

Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system 

sample line valves, and Reactor 

Recirculation loop sample line valves. 

Existing requirements for the 

Mechanical Vacuum Pump (MVP) 

would be retained in the Technical 

Requirements Manual (TRM). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes eliminate the 

MSLRM trip and isolation function from 

initiating an automatic reactor scram and 

automatic closure of the MSIVs. The 

justification for eliminating the MSLRM trip 

and isolation functions is based on the NRCapproved evaluation provided in General 

Electric’s (GE’s) Licensing Topical Report 

(LTR) NEDO–31400A, ‘‘Safety Evaluation for 

Eliminating the Boiling Water Reactor Main 

Steam Line Isolation Valve Closure Function 

and Scram Function of the Main Steam Line 

Radiation Monitor,’’ dated October 1992. The 

proposed changes also include the 

elimination of the MSLRM isolation function 

from closing the MSL drain valves, MSL 

sample line valves, RHR system sample line 

valves, and Reactor Recirculation loop 

sample line valves. The identified sample 

lines are small in comparison to the size of 

MSLs, and therefore, the effects of not 

isolating these lines for at least one hour is 

considered small and is supported by the 

dose analyses. The MSLRM system is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Retaining requirements for the 

MVP in the TRM will ensure that appropriate 

measures and requirements are in place such 

that any release of radioactive material 

released from a gross fuel failure will be 

contained in the Main Condenser and 

processed through the Offgas System. 

The proposed changes do not introduce 

new equipment or new equipment operating 

modes. The proposed changes do not 

increase system or component pressures, 

temperatures, or flowrates for systems 

designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the 

consequences of an accident. There are no 

changes or modifications to the MVP. The 

MVP will continue to function as designed in 

all required modes of operation. Since these 

conditions do not change, the likelihood of 

a failure or malfunction of a Structure, 

System, or Component (SSC) is not 

increased. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated (i.e., the 

Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA)), have 

been evaluated consistent with the PBAPS 

licensing basis, which is based on Alternative 

Source Term (10 CFR 50.67). As 

demonstrated by the supporting dose 

analyses, the consequences of the accident 

are within the regulatory acceptance 

criterion. As a result, the consequences of 

any accident previously evaluated are not 

significantly increased. 

Based on the above, Exelon concludes that 

the proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents result from 

the proposed changes. The proposed changes 

do not involve a change in the method of 

operation of plant SSC. The proposed 

changes do not increase system or 

component pressures, temperatures, or 

flowrates. There is no new system 

component being installed, no construction 

of a new facility, and no performance of a 

new test or maintenance function. The MVP 

will continue to function as designed in all 

required modes of operation. Since these 

conditions do not change, the proposed 

changes will not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident. Retaining 

requirements for the MVP in the TRM will 

ensure that appropriate measures and 

requirements are in place such that any 

release of radioactive material released from 

a gross fuel failure will be contained in the 

Main Condenser and processed through the 

Offgas System. The elimination of the 

MSLRM trip and isolation functions as 

described is only credited in the CRDA 

analysis and no other event in the safety 

analysis. The proposed changes are 

consistent with the revised safety analysis 

assumptions for a CRDA as described in this 

license amendment request. 

Based on the above discussion, Exelon 

concludes that the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes eliminate the 

MSLRM trip and isolation functions from 

initiating an automatic reactor scram and 

automatic closure of the MSIVs along with 

closing of the MSL drain valves, MSL sample 

line valves, RHR system sample line valves, 

and Reactor Recirculation loop sample line 

valves and are justified based on the NRCapproved LTR NEDO–31400A and 

supporting dose analysis. Retaining 

requirements for the MVP in the TRM will 

ensure that appropriate measures and 

requirements are in place such that any 

release of radioactive material from a gross 

fuel failure will be contained in the Main 

Condenser and processed through the Offgas 

System. 

The proposed changes do not increase 

system or component pressures, 

temperatures, or flowrates for systems 

designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the 

consequences of an accident. Analyses 

performed consistent with the PBAPS 

licensing basis, demonstrate that the removal 

of the trip and isolation functions as 

described will not cause a significant 

reduction in the margin of safety, as the 

resulting offsite dose consequences are being 

maintained within regulatory limits. The 

proposed changes do not exceed or alter a 

design basis or a safety limit for a parameter 

to be described or established in the Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) or the 

Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL). 

As a result, Exelon concludes that 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, 200 Exelon 

Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac 

County, Wisconsin 

Date of amendment request: July 2, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14183A944. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the technical specifications 

(TSs) to address U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Generic Letter 2008– 

01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in 

Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 

Removal, and Containment Spray 

Systems,’’ by adoption of Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–523, ‘‘Generic Letter 

2008–01, Managing Gas Accumulation,’’ 

Revision 2. The proposed change revises 

and adds TS surveillance requirements 

(SRs) to verify that the system locations 

susceptible to gas accumulation are 

sufficiently filled with water and to 

provide allowances which permit 

performance of the verification. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is provided below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 67203 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises and adds SRs 

that require verification that the Emergency 

Core Cooling System (ECCS), Residual Heat 

Removal (RHR) System, and the Containment 

Spray 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 of performing their 

assumed safety function and are not rendered 

inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, 

the consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises and adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, RHR 

System, and Containment Spray 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 

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

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. In addition, the proposed 

change does not impose any new or different 

requirements that could initiate an accident. 

The proposed change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis and 

is consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, RHR 

System, and Containment Spray 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 

that 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 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: William Blair, 

Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida 

Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 

14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac 

County, Wisconsin 

Date of amendment request: July 3, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14190A267. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the technical specifications 

(TSs) by relocating specific 

surveillances to a licensee-controlled 

program by adoption of Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–425, Revision 3, 

‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 

Licensee Control—Risk Informed 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(RITSTF) Initiative 5B.’’ The proposed 

change would also add a new program, 

the Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program, to TS Section 5.0, 

‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ Subsection 

5.5, ‘‘Programs and Manuals.’’ 

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 provided below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change relocates the 

specified frequencies for periodic 

surveillance requirements to licensee control 

under a new Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The systems and 

components required by the technical 

specifications for which the surveillance 

frequencies are relocated are still required to 

be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for 

the surveillance requirements, and be 

capable of performing any mitigation 

function assumed in the accident analysis. 

As a result, the consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

increased. 

Therefore, the proposed 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 previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents result from 

utilizing the proposed change. The changes 

do not involve a physical alteration of the 

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

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. In addition, the changes do not 

impose any new or different requirements. 

The changes do not alter assumptions made 

in the safety analysis assumptions and 

current plant operating practice. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The design, operation, testing methods, 

and acceptance criteria for systems, 

structures, and components (SSCs), specified 

in applicable codes and standards (or 

alternatives approved for use by the NRC) 

will continue to be met as described in the 

plant licensing basis (including the final 

safety analysis report and bases to TS), since 

these are not affected by changes to the 

surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is 

no impact to safety analysis acceptance 

criteria as described in the plant licensing 

basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated 

surveillance frequency, NextEra will perform 

a probabilistic risk evaluation using the 

guidance contained in NRC-approved NEI 

04–10, Revision 1, in accordance with the TS 

Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 

04–10, Revision 1, methodology provides 

reasonable acceptance guidelines and 

methods for evaluating the risk increase of 

proposed changes to surveillance frequencies 

consistent with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William Blair, 

Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida 

Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 

14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– 

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

September 25, 2014. A publiclyVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:55 Nov 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1

TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
67204 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 

available version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14268A388. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed changes would revise the 

Combined Licenses (COLs) by 

increasing the tolerances listed for four 

concrete thicknesses in COL Appendix 

C and plant-specific Tier 1 Table 3.3–1, 

‘‘Definition of Wall Thicknesses for 

Nuclear Island Buildings, Turbine 

Building, and Annex Building,’’ from 

±1′′ to ±11⁄4′′ for one wall and from ±1′′ 

to ±15⁄8′′ for the remaining three walls. 

Because, this proposed change 

requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control 

Document (DCD), the licensee also 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 

in accordance with 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. 

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 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 from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

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 code compliance, design function, 

design analysis, or safety analysis input or 

result. 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 J. 

Burkhart. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 

and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

14, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14227A707. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would amend 

Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and 

NPF–92 for the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. 

The requested amendment proposes 

changes to revise the VEGP Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), 

involving Tier 1 and associated Tier 2 

departures that address the removal of 

an unneeded supply line from the 

Compressed and Instrument Air System 

(CAS) to the generator breaker package. 

Because this proposed change 

requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 design control 

document (DCD), the licensee also 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 

in accordance with 52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

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

circuit breaker (GCB) from the CAS. The 

proposed changes do not involve any 

accident initiating component/system failure 

or event, thus the probabilities of the 

accidents previously evaluated are not 

affected. The affected equipment does not 

affect or interact with safety-related 

equipment or a radioactive material barrier, 

and this activity does not involve the 

containment of radioactive material. Thus, 

the proposed changes would not affect any 

safety-related accident mitigating function. 

The radioactive material source terms and 

release paths used in the safety analyses are 

unchanged, thus the radiological releases in 

the UFSAR accident analyses are not 

affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve an increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

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

No structure, system or component (SSC) or 

design function is affected, thus no 

equipment whose failure could initiate an 

accident is involved. No new interface with 

components that contain radioactive material 

is created. The proposed change does 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. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

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

The proposed changes do not affect any 

safety-related equipment or function. The 

UFSAR Chapters 6 and 15 analyses are not 

affected. No safety analysis or design basis 

acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 

exceeded by the proposed changes, thus a 

margin of safety is not directly nor indirectly 

affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment 

does not reduce 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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 67205 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

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. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Date of amendment request: August 

14, 2013, as supplemented by letter 

dated May 14, 2014. Publicly-available 

versions are available in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML13228A265, and 

ML14139A342, respectively. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The amendment would modify 

the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 

(Ginna) facility operating license, in 

accordance with § 50.90 and as required 

under Order EA–13–092. The 

amendment would also modify the 

license to reflect a grant of Section 161A 

of the Atomic Energy Act, to permit the 

licensee’s security personnel to possess 

and use weapons, devices, ammunition, 

or other firearms, notwithstanding state, 

local, and certain federal firearms laws 

that may prohibit such use. The NRC 

refers to this authority as ‘‘stand-alone 

preemption authority.’’ The licensee is 

seeking stand-alone preemption 

authority for standard weapons 

presently in use at the Ginna facility in 

accordance with the Ginna security 

plans. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: October 27, 

2014 (79 FR 63951). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

November 26, 2014, for public 

comments; December 26, 2014, for 

hearing requests. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine 

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 

2, Oswego County, New York 

Date of amendment request: August 

14, 2013, as supplemented by letter 

dated May 14, 2014. Publicly-available 

versions are available in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML13228A265, and 

ML14139A342, respectively. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The amendment would modify 

the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2 (Nine Mile Point) facility 

operating licenses, in accordance with 

§ 50.90 and as required under Order 

EA–13–092. The amendment would also 

modify the license to reflect a grant of 

Section 161A of the Atomic Energy Act, 

to permit the licensee’s security 

personnel to possess and use weapons, 

devices, ammunition, or other firearms, 

notwithstanding state, local, and certain 

federal firearms laws that may prohibit 

such use. The NRC refers to this 

authority as ‘‘stand-alone preemption 

authority.’’ The licensee is seeking 

stand-alone preemption authority for 

standard weapons presently in use at 

the Nine Mile Point facility in 

accordance with the Nine Mile Point 

security plans. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: October 27, 

2014, (79 FR 63951). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

November 26, 2014, for public 

comments; December 26, 2014, for 

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 

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, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of application of amendments: 

May 20, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments are administrative in 

nature to revise obsolete information 

that no longer pertains to the Technical 

Specifications related to the Reactor 

Protective System, the Engineered 

Safeguards Protective System, the Low 

Pressure Service Water Reactor Building 

Waterhammer Prevention Circuitry, and 

the Emergency Condenser Circulating 

Water System. 

Date of Issuance: October 21, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1, 388; Unit 2, 

390; Unit 3, 389. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14195A355; 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 and 

the technical specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45473). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 21, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
67206 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: 

December 11, 2013. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises technical 

specification (TS) requirements to add a 

new Limiting Condition for Operation 

(LCO) Applicability requirement, LCO 

3.0.9. The LCO establishes conditions 

under which TS systems would remain 

operable when required physical 

barriers are not capable of providing 

their related support function. The 

amendment is consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specifications (STS) change TSTF–427, 

‘‘Allowance for Non-Technical 

Specification Barrier Degradation on 

Supported System OPERABILITY,’’ 

Revision 2, using the consolidated line 

item improvement process. 

Date of issuance: October 22, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

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

Accession No. ML13345B160; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–20: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR 

15148). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN 

50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron Station, 

Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 18, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises Technical 

Specifications (TS) 3.4.15, ‘‘RCS 

[Reactor Coolant System] Leakage 

Detection Instrumentation,’’ to define a 

new time limit for restoring inoperable 

RCS leakage detection instrumentation 

to operable status and establish alternate 

methods of monitoring RCS leakage 

when one or more required monitors are 

inoperable. The changes are consistent 

with NRC-approved Revision 3 to 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 

Specification (STS) Change Traveler 

TSTF–513, ‘‘Revise PWR [pressurizedwater reactor] Operability Requirements 

and Actions for RCS Leakage 

Instrumentation.’’ The availability of 

this TS improvement was announced in 

the Federal Register on January 3, 2011 

(76 FR 189), as part of the consolidated 

line item improvement process. 

Date of issuance: October 20, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 179/185. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14253A508; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72, NPF–77, NPF–37, and NPF–66: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35804). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 20, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 

2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of amendment request: October 

31, 2013. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Program,’’ and TS 5.6.9, 

‘‘Steam Generator Tube Inspection 

Report,’’ to address implementation 

issues associated with the inspection 

periods. The amendments also revised 

TS 3.4.18, ‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Tube 

Integrity,’’ for administrative purposes. 

The revisions are consistent with 

Commission-approved Technical 

Specifications Task Force Standard 

Technical Specifications Change 

Traveler 510, Revision 2, ‘‘Revision to 

Steam Generator Program Inspection 

Frequencies and Tube Sample 

Selection.’’ 

Date of issuance: October 29, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 308 and 286. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14288A102; 

documents related to this these 

amendments are listed in the Safety 

Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: The 

amendments revised the License and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42547). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 29, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 

2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of amendment request: October 

16, 2012, as supplemented by letters 

dated July 12, 2013, May 30, 2014, and 

September 3, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC 

[Alternating Current] SourcesOperating,’’ by adding Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.17, and 

modifying SRs 3.8.1.8, 3.8.1.11, and 

3.8.2.1. The revisions are related to 

diesel generator (DG) testing duration, 

loading requirements, and frequency of 

DG sequencer testing. 

Date of issuance: October 21, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days after the end of the 2015 

refueling outage. 

Amendment Nos.: 307 and 285. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14280A522; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: The 

amendments revised the Licenses and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR 14130). 

The supplemental letters dated July 12, 

2013, May 30, 2014, and September 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 NRC 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 October 21, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Notices 67207 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 

2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of amendment request: October 

2, 2012, as supplemented by letters 

dated November 26, 2012, July 1, 2013, 

February 7, 2014, and October 3, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel 

Oil’’ by removing the current stored 

diesel fuel oil numerical volume 

requirements from the TSs and 

replacing them with diesel generator 

(DG) operating time requirements 

consistent with NRC staff approved 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

Standard Technical Specifications 

Traveler 501, Revision 1, ‘‘Relocate 

Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil Volume 

Values to Licensee Control.’’ The 

amendments also revised TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC 

[alternating current] SourcesOperating,’’ by replacing the specific DG 

day tank fuel oil numerical volume 

requirements with the requirement to 

maintain greater than or equal to a 1- 

hour supply of fuel oil. 

Date of issuance: October 21, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 306 and 284. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14239A491; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: The 

amendments revised the Licenses and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR 14130). 

The supplemental letters dated 

November 26, 2012, July 1, 2013, 

February 7, 2014, and October 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 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 October 21, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 

Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: October 

30, 2012, as supplemented by letters 

dated May 16, 2013, June 7, 2013, 

March 13, 2014, and May 30, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Renewed 

Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to reflect 

fuel storage system changes; a revised 

criticality safety analysis that addresses 

legacy fuel types, in addition to the 

planned use of AREVA ATRIUMTM

10XM fuel design; and adds a new TS 

5.5.14, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool Boral 

Monitoring Program,’’ for assuring that 

the spent fuel pool storage rack neutron 

absorber material (Boral) continues to 

meet the minimum requirements 

assumed in the criticality safety 

analysis. 

Date of issuance: October 24, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 182. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14197A020; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–22: This amendment revises 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 11, 2013 (78 FR 35063). 

The supplemental letters dated May 16, 

2013, June 7, 2013, and March 13, 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 issued a revised no 

significant hazards consideration on 

June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35805), to consider 

the aspects of the new Boral monitoring 

program in TS 5.5.14 proposed in the 

May 30, 2014, supplemental letter. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, 

Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

March 24, 2014, as supplemented July 

23, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specification (TS) Reactor Core Safety 

Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 reactor steam 

dome pressure from 785 to 685 pounds 

per square inch guage (psig). 

Date of issuance: October 20, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—269 and 

Unit 2—213. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14276A634; documents related 

to this these amendments are listed in 

the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5: Amendments 

revised the licenses and the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35806). 

The supplemental letter dated July 23, 

2014, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 20, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day 

of October 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26556 Filed 11–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

[OPIC Form 252] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comments Request 

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation (OPIC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), agencies are required to 

publish a Notice in the Federal Register 

notifying the public that the agency has 

prepared an information collection for 

OMB review and approval and has 

requested public review and comment 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES