Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70209 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 

a notice of permit applications received 

to conduct activities regulated under the 

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 

NSF has published regulations under 

the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 

45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This is the required notice 

of permit applications received. 

DATES: Interested parties are invited to 

submit written data, comments, or 

views with respect to this permit 

application by December 26, 2014. This 

application may be inspected by 

interested parties at the Permit Office, 

address below. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 

Division of Polar Programs, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Li 

Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, at 

the above address or ACApermits@

nsf.gov or (703) 292–7149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Science Foundation, as 

directed by the Antarctic Conservation 

Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as 

amended by the Antarctic Science, 

Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, 

has developed regulations for the 

establishment of a permit system for 

various activities in Antarctica and 

designation of certain animals and 

certain geographic areas requiring 

special protection. The regulations 

establish such a permit system to 

designate Antarctic Specially Protected 

Areas. 

Application Details 

Permit Application: 2015–016 

1. Applicant Ashley Perrin. Racing 

Yacht Management. P.O. Box 623. 

Mill Valley, CA 94942. 

Activity for Which Permit Is Requested 

Waste permit; Applicant requests that 

16 total passengers and crew aboard the 

56 meter sailing yacht SY Fidelis be 

allowed into the Antarctic Treaty area, 

to cruise along the Antarctic Peninsula 

for tourism and sightseeing purposes. 

Applicant proposes to make select stops 

at non-protected area landings, for daytime sightseeing. Applicant intends to 

follow Appendix 2 for all food waste 

and garbage, and the boat has an 

onboard sewage treatment plant that 

meets MARPOL 6 standards. 

Contingency plans are in place in case 

of accidental releases to the 

environment. 

Location 

Antarctic Peninsula, South Shetland 

Islands. 

Dates 

January 1 to February 1, 2015. 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of 

Polar Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27901 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0252] 

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 30, 

2014 to November 12, 2014. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

November 12, 2014. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

December 26, 2014. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by January 26, 

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–2014–0252. 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: 

Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

1262, email: sandra.figueroa@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0252 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–2014–0252. 

• 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– 

0252 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70210 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

Part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

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

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

by the above date, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70211 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

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

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use E-Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E-Filing no 

longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70212 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power 

Station, Unit 2, New London County, 

Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: March 

28, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14093A027. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would make changes to 

the Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 

(MPS2) Technical Specifications (TSs). 

The proposed changes delete the TS 

Index and make administrative changes 

and corrections to the TSs. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

in nature. The proposed changes remove the 

TS Index and make other editorial and 

administrative corrections to the TSs. These 

administrative changes are not initiators of 

any accident previously evaluated, and, 

consequently, the probability and 

consequence of an accident previously 

evaluated is not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

in nature so no new or different accidents 

result from 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), a change in the 

method of plant operation, or new operator 

actions. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed administrative changes do 

not involve a change in the method of plant 

operation, do not affect any accident 

analyses, and do not relax any safety system 

settings. 

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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power 

Station (MPS), Unit 2, New London 

County, Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: April 11, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14112A072. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

add the Framatome-ANP (AREVA) 

topical report for the M5® (hereafter 

referred as M5) fuel rod cladding 

material to TS 6.9.1.8.b, ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report.’’ The M5 fuel 

rod cladding material was approved by 

the NRC in Topical Report BAW– 

10240(P)(A), Revision 0, ‘‘Incorporation 

of M5TM Properties in FramatomeANP 

Approved Methods.’’ 

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 TS change is: (1) Adding 

BAW–10240(P)(A) to the list of approved 

methodologies for determining core operating 

limits at MPS2. 

The proposed change to TS 6.9.1.8.b 

permits the use of the appropriate 

methodology to analyze accidents for cores 

containing fuel with M5 cladding to ensure 

that the plant continues to meet applicable 

design criteria and safety analysis acceptance 

criteria. The proposed change to the list of 

NRC-approved methodologies listed in TS 

6.9.1.8.b has no impact on plant operation 

and configuration. The list of methodologies 

in TS 6.9.1.8.b does not impact either the 

initiation of an accident or the mitigation of 

its consequences. 

The NRC has previously approved use of 

M5 fuel rod cladding material provided that 

licensees ensure compliance with the 

conditions set forth in the NRC SE [Safety 

Evaluation] for topical report BAW– 

10240(P)(A). Confirmation that these 

conditions are satisfied is performed under 

10 CFR 50.59 as part of the normal core 

reloads process. 

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 addition of topical report 

BAW–10240(P)(A) to the list of NRC 

approved methodologies listed in TS 

6.9.1.8.b, has no impact on any plant 

configuration or system performance. There 

is no change to the parameters within which 

the plant is normally operated, and thus, the 

possibility of a new or different type of 

accident is not created. 

Therefore, the addition of BAW– 

10240(P)(A) to TS 6.9.1.8.b does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident or malfunction from those 

previously evaluated within the FSAR. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the list of NRCapproved methodologies listed in TS 

6.9.1.8.b has no impact on any plant 

configuration or system performance. Topical 

report BAW–10240(P)(A) has been reviewed 

and approved by the NRC for use with M5 

fuel rod cladding. Approved methodologies 

will be used to ensure that the plant 

continues to meet applicable design criteria 

and safety analysis acceptance criteria. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power 

Station, Unit 3, New London County, 

Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: 

November 6, 2013. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML13322A415. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70213 

Specification (TS) 3/4.5.4, ‘‘Refueling 

Water Storage Tank,’’ and TS 3/4.6.2.1, 

‘‘Depressurization and Cooling Systems, 

Containment Quench Spray System 

[QSS],’’ to provide additional 

operational margin for control of the 

Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) 

temperature. 

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 affects the allowable 

limit for RWST temperature. Since the RWST 

is a passive component used as a water 

supply for ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling 

System] and QSS that operate only following 

an accident, the proposed change cannot 

cause an accident or affect the probability of 

any accident. 

Evaluations have been performed to 

address the impact of raising the maximum 

RWST temperature on the performance of the 

ECCS and QSS. The evaluations demonstrate 

that NPSH [Net Positive Suction Head] 

margin would be maintained for the ECCS 

and QSS pumps that take suction from the 

RWST following a Safety Injection Actuation 

Signal or a Containment Depressurization 

Actuation Signal. Pipe and component stress 

limits continue to be met at the higher RWST 

temperature. Thus, it is concluded that the 

ECCS and QSS will continue to meet the 

design basis requirements. 

The FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] 

Chapter 15 accident analyses and Chapter 6 

containment analyses were performed 

assuming an RWST temperature that bounds 

the proposed technical specification change. 

Thus, the proposed change has no significant 

impact on the consequences of an accident as 

documented in the current analysis of record. 

Changing the ACTION statement to include 

the wording ‘‘the next’’ is administrative and 

editorial in nature. This proposed change 

does not alter the effective technical content 

of the ACTION statement. 

Thus, it is concluded that the proposed 

changes do not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequences of any 

analyzed accident. 

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 only increases the 

allowable range for the RWST temperature. 

As such, it cannot initiate a transient or 

accident. Evaluations have been performed 

that demonstrate that the ECCS and QSS 

systems will have adequate NPSH and the 

design bases will be met. 

Thus, the proposed change cannot create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Evaluations have been performed that 

demonstrate that the ECCS and QSS pumps 

will maintain NPSH margin when taking 

suction from the RWST at the higher 

temperature limit. The mechanical 

component stress requirements will continue 

to be met at the higher temperature. 

Thus, the ECCS and QSS will continue to 

operate as required to mitigate a design basis 

accident. 

The accident analyses were performed 

with assumed RWST temperatures that 

bound this proposed change. The 

containment analysis and accident analyses 

demonstrate that the design basis 

requirements are met. 

Thus, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power 

Station (MPS), Unit 3, New London 

County, Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: March 

28, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14093A026. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would make the 

following changes to the MPS3 

Technical Specifications (TSs): 

(a) Delete TS index pages i through xix. 

(b) Replace the first sub-letter under TS 

Table 4.3–2 Item 4, Steam Line Isolation— 

‘‘Manual Initiation,’’ which currently appears 

as sub-letter ‘‘d’’ on Page 3/4 3–37, with subletter ‘‘a.’’ 

(c) Revise TS 6.3.2, Facility Staff 

Qualifications, from: 

‘‘If the operations manager does not hold 

a senior reactor operator license for Millstone 

Unit No. 3, then the operations manager shall 

have held a senior reactor operator license at 

a pressurized water reactor, and the assistant 

operations manager shall hold a senior 

reactor operator license for Millstone Unit 

No. 3.’’ 

to: 

‘‘The operations manager or at least one 

operations middle manager shall hold a 

senior reactor operator license for Millstone 

Unit No. 3.’’ 

(d) Replace the term ‘‘SORC’’ in paragraph 

b of the ‘‘Licensee initiated changes to the 

REMODCM,’’ described in TS 6.13 with the 

term ‘‘FSRC.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

in nature. The proposed changes remove the 

TS Index and make other editorial and 

administrative corrections to the TSs. These 

administrative changes are not initiators of 

any accident previously evaluated, and, 

consequently, the probability and 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated is not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

in nature so no new or different accidents 

result from 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), a change in the 

method of plant operation, or new operator 

actions. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed administrative changes do 

not involve a change in the method of plant 

operation, do not affect any accident 

analyses, and do not relax any safety system 

settings. 

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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70214 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

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

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 

Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of amendment request: August 1, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14216A383. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the allowable values in Technical 

Specification (TS) Table 3.3.5.1–1, 

‘‘Emergency Core Cooling 

Instrumentation,’’ Functions 4.c and 5.c; 

Table 3.3.6.3–1, ‘‘RHR [Residual Heat 

Removal] Containment Spray System 

Instrumentation,’’ Function 4; and Table 

3.3.8.1–1, ‘‘Loss of Power 

Instrumentation,’’ Functions 1.c, 2.c, 

and 2.e. Revisions of setpoint 

calculations supporting the above 

tables, identified that the allowable 

values in the above functions are nonconservative. The licensee has noted 

that while the allowable values are nonconservative, the setpoints remain 

conservative. 

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 TS allowable value changes 

involve changes in the margin between the 

allowable values and the setpoints. The 

proposed TS changes do not change the trip 

setpoints. The proposed TS changes do not 

degrade the performance of, or increase the 

challenges to, any safety systems assumed to 

function in the accident analysis. The 

proposed TS changes do not impact the 

usefulness of the [surveillance requirements] 

SRs in evaluating the operability of required 

systems and components, or the way in 

which the surveillances are performed. In 

addition, the [* * *] trip setpoints for the 

associated TRM [Technical Requirements 

Manual] functions are not considered an 

initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does 

a revision to the allowable value introduce 

any accident initiators. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The consequences of a previously 

evaluated accident are not significantly 

increased. The proposed change does not 

affect the performance of any equipment 

credited to mitigate the radiological 

consequences of an accident. Evaluation of 

the proposed TS changes demonstrated that 

the availability of credited equipment is not 

significantly affected because of the 

reduction in margin between the allowable 

values and the trip setpoints. 

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 TS changes involves changes 

in allowable value settings to correct nonconservative values. The proposed TS 

changes do not introduce any failure 

mechanisms of a different type than those 

previously evaluated, since there are no 

physical changes being made to the facility. 

No new or different equipment is being 

installed. No installed equipment is being 

operated in a different manner. As a result, 

no new failure modes are being introduced. 

The way surveillance tests are performed 

remains unchanged. 

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 TS change involves changes 

in the allowable value settings to correct nonconservative values. The impact of the 

change on system availability is not 

significant, based on the frequency of the 

testing being unchanged, the existence of 

redundant systems and equipment, and 

overall system reliability. The proposed 

change does not significantly impact the 

condition or performance of structures, 

systems, and components relied upon for 

accident mitigation. The proposed change 

does not result in any hardware changes or 

in any changes to the analytical limits 

assumed in accident analyses. Existing 

operating margin between plant conditions 

and actual plant setpoints is not significantly 

reduced due to these changes. The proposed 

change does not impact any safety analysis 

assumptions or results. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

(EGC), Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of amendment request: 

September 18, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14265A219. 

Description of amendments request: 

The amendment(s) would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.16, 

‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing 

Program’’ to allow for permanent 

extensions of Type A Integrated Leak 

Rate Testing (ILRT) and Type C Leak 

Rate Testing frequencies to 15 years and 

75 months, respectively. 

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 amendment to the TS 

involves the extension of the Calvert Cliffs 

Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test 

interval to 15 years and the extension of the 

Type C test interval to 75 months. The 

current Type A test interval of 120 months 

(10 years) would be extended on a permanent 

basis to no longer than 15 years from the last 

Type A test. The current Type C test interval 

of 60 months for selected components would 

be extended on a performance basis to no 

longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to 

nine months (total maximum interval of 84 

months for Type C tests) are permissible only 

for non-routine emergent conditions. The 

proposed extension does not involve either a 

physical change to the plant or a change in 

the manner in which the plant is operated or 

controlled. The containment is designed to 

provide an essentially leak tight barrier 

against the uncontrolled release of 

radioactivity to the environment for 

postulated accidents. As such, the 

containment and the testing requirements 

invoked to periodically demonstrate the 

integrity of the containment exist to ensure 

the plant’s ability to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident, and do not 

involve the prevention or identification of 

any precursors of an accident. Therefore, this 

proposed extension does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

As documented in NUREG–1493, Type B 

and C tests have identified a very large 

percentage of containment leakage paths, and 

the percentage of containment leakage paths 

that are detected only by Type A testing is 

very small. The Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 

Type A test history supports this conclusion. 

The integrity of the containment is subject 

to two types of failure mechanisms that can 

be categorized as (1) activity based and (2) 

time based. Activity based failure 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70215 

mechanisms are defined as degradation due 

to system and/or component modifications or 

maintenance. Local leak rate test 

requirements and administrative controls 

such as configuration management and 

procedural requirements for system 

restoration ensure that containment integrity 

is not degraded by plant modifications or 

maintenance activities. The design and 

construction requirements of the 

containment combined with the containment 

inspections performed in accordance with 

ASME [American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers] Section Xl, the Maintenance Rule, 

and TS requirements serve to provide a high 

degree of assurance that the containment 

would not degrade in a manner that is 

detectable only by a Type A test. Based on 

the above, the proposed extension does not 

significantly increase the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed amendment also deletes 

exceptions previously granted to allow one 

time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 

both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from 

conducting post modification ILRT following 

replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam 

Generators. These exceptions were for things 

that have already taken place so their 

deletion is solely an administrative action 

that has no effect on any component and no 

impact on how the units are operated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

result in a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to the TS 

involves the extension of the Calvert Cliffs 

Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test 

interval to 15 years and the extension of the 

Type C test interval to 75 months. The 

containment and the testing requirements to 

periodically demonstrate the integrity of the 

containment exist to ensure the plant’s 

ability to mitigate the consequences of an 

accident do not involve any accident 

precursors or initiators. The proposed change 

does not involve a physical change to the 

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

equipment will be installed) or a change to 

the manner in which the plant is operated or 

controlled. 

The proposed amendment also deletes 

exceptions previously granted to allow one 

time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 

both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from 

conducting post modification ILRT following 

replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam 

Generators. These exceptions were for things 

that have already taken place so their 

deletion is solely an administrative action 

that does not result in any change in how the 

units are operated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.16 

involves the extension of the Calvert Cliffs 

Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test 

interval to 15 years and the extension of the 

Type C test interval to 75 months for selected 

components. This amendment does not alter 

the manner in which safety limits, limiting 

safety system set points, or limiting 

conditions for operation are determined. The 

specific requirements and conditions of the 

TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program 

exist to ensure that the degree of containment 

structural integrity and leak-tightness that is 

considered in the plant safety analysis is 

maintained. The overall containment leak 

rate limit specified by TS is maintained. 

The proposed change involves only the 

extension of the interval between Type A 

containment leak rate tests and Type C tests 

for Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2. The proposed 

surveillance interval extension is bounded by 

the 15 year ILRT Interval and the 75 month 

Type C test interval currently authorized 

within NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 94–01, 

Revision 3–A. Industry experience supports 

the conclusion that Type B and C testing 

detects a large percentage of containment 

leakage paths and that the percentage of 

containment leakage paths that are detected 

only by Type A testing is small. The 

containment inspections performed in 

accordance with ASME Section XI and TS 

serve to provide a high degree of assurance 

that the containment would not degrade in a 

manner that is detectable only by Type A 

testing. The combination of these factors 

ensures that the margin of safety in the plant 

safety analysis is maintained. The design, 

operation, testing methods and acceptance 

criteria for Type A, B, and C containment 

leakage tests specified in applicable codes 

and standards would continue to be met, 

with the acceptance of this proposed change, 

since these are not affected by changes to the 

Type A and Type C test intervals. 

The proposed amendment also deletes 

exceptions previously granted to allow one 

time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 

both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from 

conducting post modification ILRT following 

replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam 

Generators. These exceptions were for things 

that have already taken place so their 

deletion is an administrative action and does 

not change how the units are operated and 

maintained, thus there is no reduction in any 

margin of safety. 

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 

amendments request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Exelon Generation, 200 Exelon 

Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

(EGC), Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 

1 and 2 (NMP1 And NMP2), Oswego 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

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

Accession No. ML14254A007. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the licensed operator training and 

qualification education and experience 

eligibility requirements specified in 

NMP1 Technical Specification (TS) 

6.3.1 and NMP2 TS 5.3.1 to the 

eligibility requirements specified in this 

License Amendment Request. The 

proposed eligibility requirements 

correspond to the eligibility 

requirements contained in the current 

National Academy for Nuclear Training 

(NANT) Academy Document, ACAD 

10–001, ‘‘Guidelines for Initial Training 

and Qualification of Licensed 

Operators,’’ dated February 2010. 

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 NRC considered the impact of 

previously evaluated accidents during the 

rulemaking process, and by promulgation of 

the revised 10 CFR 55 rule, determined that 

this impact remains acceptable when 

licensees have an accredited licensed 

operator training program which is based on 

a Systems Approach to Training (SAT). EGC 

maintains an Institute of Nuclear Power 

Operations (INPO) National Academy for 

Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited program 

which is based on a SAT. The NRC has 

concluded in Regulatory Information 

Summary (RIS) 2001–01, ‘‘Eligibility of 

Operator License Applicants,’’ and NUREG– 

1021, ‘‘Operator Licensing Examination 

Standards For Power Reactors,’’ that 

standards and guidelines applied by INPO in 

their accredited training programs are 

equivalent to those put forth by or endorsed 

by the NRC. Therefore, maintaining an INPO 

accredited SAT-based licensed operator 

training program is equivalent to maintaining 

an NRC approved licensed operator training 

program which conforms to applicable NRC 

Regulatory Guidelines or NRC endorsed 

industry standards. The proposed changes 

conform to NANT ACAD 10–001 licensed 

operator education and experience eligibility 

requirements. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70216 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment involves 

changes to the licensed operator training 

programs, which are administrative in 

nature. The EGC licensed operator training 

programs have been accredited by the 

National Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB) 

and are based on a SAT, which the NRC has 

previously found to be acceptable. 

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 amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed TS changes are 

administrative in nature. The proposed TS 

changes do not affect plant design, hardware, 

system operation, or procedures for accident 

mitigation systems. The proposed changes do 

not significantly impact the performance or 

proficiency requirements for licensed 

operators. As a result, the ability of the plant 

to respond to and mitigate accidents is 

unchanged by the proposed TS changes. 

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: Donald P. 

Ferraro, Assistant General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 

Exelon Way, Suite 305, Kennett Square, 

PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Perry, OH 

Date of amendment request: 

September 12, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14255A150. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment modifies the 

Technical Specification (TS) definition 

of SHUTDOWN MARGIN (SDM) to 

require determination of SDM at the 

temperature that represents the most 

reactive state throughout the operating 

cycle. The proposed changes are 

intended to be consistent with the 

approved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–535, 

Revision 0. 

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 revises the definition 

of Shutdown Margin (SDM). SDM is not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. Accordingly, the proposed change 

to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated. SDM is an assumption in the 

analysis of some previously evaluated 

accidents and inadequate SDM could lead to 

an increase in consequences for those 

accidents. However, the proposed change 

revises the SDM definition to ensure that the 

correct SDM is determined for all BWR 

[boiling-water reactor] fuel types at all times 

during the fuel cycle. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the definition 

of SDM. The change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant that is, no 

new or different type of equipment will be 

installed or a change in the methods 

governing normal plant operations. The 

change does not alter assumptions made in 

the safety analysis regarding SDM. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the definition 

of SDM. The proposed change does not alter 

the manner in which safety limits, limiting 

safety system settings or limiting conditions 

for operation are determined. The proposed 

change ensures that the SDM assumed in 

determining safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation is correct for all BWR fuel types at 

all times during the fuel cycle. 

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: David W. 

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76 

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. 

Florida Power and Light Company, 

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

Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: August 

29, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14252A230. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) by 

removing TS 3/4.4.7, ‘‘Chemistry,’’ 

which provides limits on the oxygen, 

chloride, and fluoride content in the 

reactor coolant system to minimize 

corrosion. The licensee requested that 

these requirements be relocated to the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR) and related procedures and be 

controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 

50.59, ‘‘Changes, tests, and 

experiments.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented as 

follows: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change acts to remove 

current Reactor Coolant System (RCS) 

chemistry limits and monitoring 

requirements from the TS and relocate the 

requirements to the UFSAR and related 

procedures. Monitoring and maintaining RCS 

chemistry minimizes the potential for 

corrosion of RCS piping and components. 

Corrosion effects are considered a long-term 

impact on RCS structural integrity. Because 

RCS chemistry will continue to be monitored 

and controlled, removing the current TS 

requirements and relocating the requirements 

to the UFSAR and related procedures will 

not present an adverse impact to the RCS and 

subsequently, will not impact the probability 

or consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. Furthermore, once relocated to the 

UFSAR and related procedures, changes to 

RCS chemistry limits and monitoring 

requirements will be controlled in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change acts to remove 

current Reactor Coolant System (RCS) 

chemistry limits and monitoring 

requirements from the TS and relocate the 

requirements to the UFSAR and related 

procedures. The proposed change does not 

introduce new modes of plant operation and 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70217 

it does not involve physical modifications to 

the plant (no new or different type of 

equipment will be installed). There are no 

changes in the method by which any safety 

related plant structure, system, or component 

(SSC) performs its specified safety function. 

As such, the plant conditions for which the 

design basis accident analyses were 

performed remain valid. 

No new accident scenarios, transient 

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures will be introduced as a result 

of the proposed change. There will be no 

adverse effect or challenges imposed on any 

SSC as a result of the proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is related to confidence in 

the ability of the fission product barriers to 

perform their accident mitigation functions. 

The proposed change acts to remove current 

Reactor Coolant System (RCS) chemistry 

limits and monitoring requirements from the 

TS and relocate the requirements to the 

UFSAR and related procedures. The 

proposed change will maintain limits on RCS 

chemistry parameters and will continue to 

provide associated monitoring requirements. 

The proposed change does not physically 

alter any SSC. There will be no effect on 

those SSCs necessary to assure the 

accomplishment of protection functions. 

There will be no impact on the overpower 

limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio 

(DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak 

cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), or any 

other margin of safety. The applicable 

radiological dose consequence acceptance 

criteria will continue to be met. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s 

analysis and, based on this review, it 

appears that the three standards of 

50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the 

NRC staff proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light Company, 700 

Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno 

Beach, Florida 33408–0420. 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. 

Regner. 

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50– 

387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam 

Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, 

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: August 

11, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

available in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14223A780. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment proposes changes to 

SSES, Units 1 and 2, Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ‘‘RCS [Reactor 

Coolant System] Pressure and 

Temperature (P/T) Limits,’’ which 

includes revisions to the P/T Limits 

curves. The primary effect of the 

revision is to provide P/T Limits curves 

that extend into the vacuum region to 

mitigate the risk of a level transient 

during startup and shutdown. 

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, along with NRC edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes request that the 

P/T limits curves in TS 3.4.10, ‘‘RCS Pressure 

and Temperature (P/T) Limits’’ be revised by 

extending each of the P/T Limits curves 

below 0 psig to allow operation with the RPV 

[reactor pressure vessel] at a vacuum. 

The P/T curves are used as operational 

limits during heatup or cooldown 

maneuvering, when pressure and 

temperature indications are monitored and 

compared to the applicable curve to 

determine that operation is within the 

allowable region. The P/T curves provide 

assurance that station operation is consistent 

with previously evaluated accidents. 

Thus, the probability of an accident or the 

radiological consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

increased. 

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 change the 

response of any plant equipment to transient 

conditions. The proposed changes do not 

introduce any new equipment, modes of 

system operation, or failure mechanisms. 

Therefore, there are no new types of 

failures or new or different kinds of accidents 

or transients that could be created by these 

changes. 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 consequences of a previously 

evaluated accident are not increased by these 

proposed changes, since the Loss of Coolant 

Accident analyzed in the FSAR [Final Safety 

Analysis Report] assumes a complete break of 

the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The 

proposed changes to the P/T Limits curves do 

not change this assumption. 

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: Bryan A. Snapp, 

Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL 

Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., 

GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101–1179. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

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

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 18, 2014. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70218 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment adopts Technical 

Specification (TS) Task Force (TSTF) 

change traveler TSTF–535, Revision 0, 

‘‘Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to 

Address Advanced Fuel Designs,’’ at 

Columbia Generating Station. The 

notice of availability of TSTF–535, 

Revision 0, was published in the 

Federal Register on February 26, 2013 

(78 FR 13100). 

Date of issuance: November 12, 2014. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 228. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14290A360; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–21: The amendment revised 

the Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

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

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (DEK), 

Docket No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power 

Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, 

Wisconsin 

Date of amendment request: January 

16, 2014, as supplemented by letters 

dated June 19, 2014, and September 9, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment authorizes revision to the 

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 

emergency plan and emergency action 

level scheme to conform to the 

permanent shut down and defueled 

status of Kewaunee Power Station 

(KPS). The review considered the 

storage of spent nuclear fuel in the spent 

fuel pool and the independent spent 

fuel storage installation, and the low 

likelihood of any credible accident 

resulting in radiological releases 

requiring offsite protective measures. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission staff has concluded that the 

changes to the KPS emergency plan and 

emergency action level scheme would 

provide: (1) An adequate basis for an 

acceptable state of emergency 

preparedness, and (2) reasonable 

assurance that adequate protective 

measures can and will be taken in the 

event of a radiological emergency based 

on the permanently shut down and 

defueled status of the KPS facility. 

Date of issuance: October 31, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 214. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14279A482; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–43: The amendment authorizes 

revision to the Dominion Energy 

Kewaunee, Inc., Renewed Facility 

Operating License emergency plan and 

emergency action level scheme. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45472). 

The supplemental letters dated June 19, 

2014, and September 9, 2014, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear 

Power Station, Plymouth County, 

Massachusetts 

Date of amendment request: 

November 26, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 11, September 11, 

October 3, and October 16, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 4.3.4, ‘‘Heavy Loads,’’ 

by modifying the limit imposed on the 

maximum weight that could travel over 

the irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool. 

The amendment also revised TS 4.3.4 to 

reflect the removal of the energy 

absorbing pad from the spent fuel pool 

and installation of a leveling platform. 

Date of issuance: October 31, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

prior to the start of the dry cask storage 

operations. 

Amendment No.: 240. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML13346A026; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–35: Amendment revised the 

License and TSs. 

Date of notices in Federal Register: 

July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42545), as 

supplemented on September 22, 2014 

(79 FR 56608). The supplement dated 

July 11, 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 (NSHC) determination as 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42545). 

The supplement dated September 11, 

2014, expanded the scope of the 

application as originally noticed and, 

therefore, the September 11, 2014, 

supplement was published in the 

Federal Register on September 22, 2014 

(79 FR 56608). The supplements dated 

October 3 and October 16, 2014, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the September 11, 2014, 

supplement, did not expand the scope 

as noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s proposed NSHC determination as 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 22, 2014 (79 FR 56608). 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: Yes. 

The notice provided an opportunity to 

submit comments on the Commission’s 

proposed NSHC determination. Several 

comments were received and evaluated. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment and final NSHC 

determination, including the comments 

received, are contained in a safety 

evaluation dated October 31, 2014. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: 

December 19, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 25, 2014. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would change the 

Vermont Yankee Cyber Security Plan 

Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 

full implementation date from 

December 15, 2015, to June 30, 2016. 

The amendment would also revise the 

existing operating license Security Plan 

license condition. 

Date of Issuance: November 7, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented by 

December 15, 2014. 

Amendment No.: 259. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14206A710; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR 

11149). The supplement letter dated 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70219 

June 25, 2014, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

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 application for amendment: 

October 7, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 18, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modified the Nine Mile 

Point Units 1 and 2 Technical 

Specifications (TS) definition of 

‘‘Shutdown Margin’’ (SDM) to require 

calculation of the SDM at a reactor 

moderator temperature of 68 °F or a 

higher temperature that represents the 

most reactive state throughout the 

operating cycle. This change is needed 

to address new Boiling Water Reactor 

(BWR) fuel designs which may be more 

reactive at shutdown temperatures 

above 68 °F. 

The NRC staff issued a notice of 

opportunity for comment in the Federal 

Register on November 19, 2012 (77 FR 

69507), on possible amendments to 

revise the plant-specific TS, to modify 

the TS definition of ‘‘Shutdown 

Margin’’ (SDM) to require calculation of 

the SDM at a reactor moderator 

temperature of 68 °F or a higher 

temperature that represents the most 

reactive state throughout the operating 

cycle, including a model safety 

evaluation and model no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

using the consolidated line-item 

improvement process. The NRC staff 

subsequently issued a notice of 

availability of the models for referencing 

in license amendment applications in 

the Federal Register on February 26, 

2013, (78 FR 13100). 

Date of issuance: October 30, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1: 216, Unit 2: 

146. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14248A084; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–63 and NPF–69: Amendment 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

License and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 12, 2013 (78 FR 

67411). The supplemental letter dated 

June 18, 2014, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 

Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 4, 2013, as supplemented on 

April 29, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changes the Site Emergency 

Plan (SEP) for the Monticello Nuclear 

Generating Plant (MNGP) by eliminating 

the Radwaste Operator position as one 

of the 60-minute responders. 

Date of issuance: October 31, 2014. 

Effective date: This amendment is 

effective as of its date of issuance and 

shall be implemented within 60 days 

from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 183. A publiclyavailable version is in the ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14196A328; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

22: This amendment revised the MNGP 

SEP. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38591). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 

Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: April 4, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification 3.5.1, ‘‘ECCS [Emergency 

Core Cooling System]—Operating,’’ by 

removing Condition F. Condition F 

provides for a 72-hour completion time 

to restore one core spray subsystem to 

an operable status when both core spray 

subsystems are inoperable. NSPM 

requested approval to remove the option 

of having a limiting condition of 

operation with both core spray 

subsystems inoperable based on an 

evaluation that at least one core spray 

subsystem is necessary to maintain 

adequate post-accident long-term core 

cooling. 

Date of issuance: November 3, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 184. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14246A449; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–22: This amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR 

49107). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: February 

10, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated June 9, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification Surveillance Requirement 

3.2, ‘‘Equipment and Sampling Tests,’’ 

Table 3–5, ‘‘Minimum Frequencies for 

Equipment Tests,’’ Item 3 for the 

pressurizer safety valves from a 

refueling frequency (i.e., 18 months ± 25 

percent) to be consistent with the 

Inservice Testing Program, and made 

editorial changes to Table 3–5. 

Date of issuance: November 6, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 277. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14279A275; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38592). 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70220 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated November 6, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas, 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: March 

13, September 25 (two letters for 

Licensing Amendment Request (LAR) 

13–16 and LAR 13–17) and October 3, 

2013 (two letters for LAR 13–18 and 

LAR 13–19), as supplemented by letters 

dated October 3, 2013, and February 10 

and June 6, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

proposed amendment involves changes 

to the five Human Factors Engineering 

(HFE) Reports (Westinghouse Electric 

Company and the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission reviewed these 

reports as part of the AP1000 Design 

Certification Rule) that are incorporated 

by reference in the VCSNS Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report. These are: 

• HFE Design Verification Plan (APP– 

OCS–GEH–120) (LAR 13–16) 

• HFE Task Support Verification Plan 

(APP–OCS–GEH–220) (LAR 13–17) 

• HFE Integrated System Validation 

(APP–OCS–GEH–320) (LAR 13–10) 

• Human Engineering Discrepancy 

Resolution Process (APP–OCS–GEH– 

420) (LAR 13–18) 

• Plant Startup HFE Design Verification 

Plan (APP–OCS–GEH–520) (LAR 13– 

19) 

Date of issuance: July 31, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 16. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14177A486; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 28, 2013 (78 FR 31984 

for LAR 13–10), November 12, 2013 (78 

FR 67412 for LAR 13–16, 78 FR 67411 

for LAR 13–17, 78 FR 67413 for LAR 

13–18, and 78 FR 67413 for LAR 13–19). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas, Inc. 

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: July 17, 

2013, as supplemented by letters dated 

July 8, and July 11, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises Tier 2* and 

associated Tier 2 information, 

incorporated into the VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR). Specifically, the 

amendment revises the following 

information related to fire area 

boundaries: (1) Various Annex Building 

and Turbine Building layout changes, 

(2) Turbine Building Stairwell S08 

changes to support egress functions, and 

(3) an Annex Building Heating, 

Ventilation and Air Conditioning shaft 

UFSAR figure clarification. 

Date of issuance: September 9, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 17. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14218A687; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 1, 2013 (78 FR 

60321). The supplements dated July 8 

and July 11, 2014, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: April 29, 

2014, as supplemented by letter dated 

May 27, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the Cyber Security 

Plan Implementation Milestone No. 8 

completion date and the physical 

protection license condition. 

Date of issuance: September 29, 2014. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–286, Unit 

2–312, and Unit 3–217. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14247A536; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68. The 

amendments revised the Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38582). 

The supplemental letter dated May 27, 

2014, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in the SE 

dated September 29, 2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day 

of November 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27630 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS), Meeting of the 

ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and 

Procedures; Notice of Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning 

and Procedures will hold a meeting on 

December 3, 2014, Room T–2B3, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The meeting will be open to public 

attendance with the exception of a 

portion that may be closed pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss 

organizational and personnel matters 

that relate solely to the internal 

personnel rules and practices of the 

ACRS, and information the release of 

which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES