73106 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

3. As explained in Section 5 of the 

NRC staff Safety Evaluation (ADAMS 

Accession Number ML14260A017), this 

exemption meets the eligibility criteria 

for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 

CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 

10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment needs to be prepared in 

connection with the issuance of the 

exemption. 

4. This exemption is effective as of 

October 24, 2014. 

III. License Amendment Request 

The request for the amendment and 

exemption was submitted by the letter 

dated October 2, 2013. The licensee 

supplemented this request by letter 

dated February 28, 2014. The proposed 

license amendment request revises 

Tables 2.6.2–1, 2.6.2–2, 2.6.3–1, and 

2.6.3–4 and Figure 2.6.2–1 of Appendix 

C of the Facility Combined License of 

Appendix C to the COLs. 

The Commission has determined for 

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 on 

November 26, 2013 (78 FR 70589). No 

comments were received during the 60- 

day comment period. 

The Commission has determined that 

these amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment need be 

prepared for these amendments. 

IV. Conclusion 

Using the reasons set forth in the 

combined safety evaluation, the staff 

granted the exemption and issued the 

amendment that the licensee requested 

on October 2, 2013, and supplemented 

by letter dated February 28, 2014. The 

exemption and amendment were issued 

on October 24, 2014 as part of a 

combined package to the licensee 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML14260A004). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of December 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Denise L. McGovern, 

Senior Project Manager, Licensing Branch 4, 

Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of 

New Reactors. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28867 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0260] 

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 November 

13, 2014 to November 26, 2014. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

November 25, 2014. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

January 8, 2015. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by February 9, 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–2014–0260. 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: 

Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–3760, 

email: mable.henderson@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0260 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–2014–0260. 

• 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– 

0260 in the subject line of your 

comment submission, in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73107 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

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

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

by the above date, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/

petitioner to relief. A requestor/

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, then any hearing held 

would take place before the issuance of 

any amendment unless the Commission 

finds an imminent danger to the health 

or safety of the public, in which case it 

will issue an appropriate order or rule 

under 10 CFR part 2. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73108 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73109 

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: June 12, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14168A302. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the site emergency plan (SEP) and 

Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme 

to reflect the reduced scope of offsite 

and onsite emergency planning and the 

significantly reduced spectrum of 

credible accidents that can occur for the 

permanently defueled condition. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration which is presented below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the emergency 

plan and EAL scheme do not impact the 

function of plant structures, systems, or 

components (SSCs). The proposed changes 

do not affect accident initiators or precursors, 

nor does it alter design assumptions. The 

proposed changes do not prevent the ability 

of the on-shift staff and emergency response 

organization (ERO) to perform their intended 

functions to mitigate the consequences of any 

accident or event that will be credible in the 

permanently defueled condition. 

The probability of occurrence of previously 

evaluated accidents is not increased, since 

most previously analyzed accidents can no 

longer occur and the probability of the few 

remaining credible accidents are unaffected 

by the proposed amendment. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes reduce the scope of 

the emergency plan and EAL scheme 

commensurate with the hazards associated 

with a permanently shutdown and defueled 

facility. The proposed changes do not involve 

installation of new equipment or 

modification of existing equipment, so that 

no new equipment failure modes are 

introduced. Also, the proposed changes do 

not result in a change to the way that the 

equipment or facility is operated so that no 

new or different kinds of accident initiators 

are created. 

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. 

Margin of safety is associated with 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor 

coolant system pressure boundary, and 

containment structure) to limit the level of 

radiation dose to the public. The proposed 

changes are associated with the emergency 

plan and EAL scheme and do not impact 

operation of the plant or its response to 

transients or accidents. The change does not 

affect the Technical Specifications. The 

proposed changes do not involve a change in 

the method of plant operation, and no 

accident analyses will be affected by the 

proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance 

criteria are not affected by the proposed 

changes. The revised SEP will continue to 

provide the necessary response staff with the 

proposed 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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, 

Assistant General Counsel, Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton 

Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3 (WF3), St. Charles Parish, 

Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: August 

28, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14241A305. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 10- 

year frequency of the Type A or 

Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) that is 

required by Technical Specification (TS) 

6.15, ‘‘Containment Leakage Rate 

Testing Program,’’ to be extended to 15 

years on a permanent basis. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment involves 

changes to the WF3 Containment Leakage 

Rate Testing Program. The proposed 

amendment does not involve a physical 

change to the plant or a change in the manner 

in which the plant is operated or controlled. 

The primary reactor building function is to 

provide an essentially leak tight barrier 

against the uncontrolled release of 

radioactivity to the environment for 

postulated accidents. As such, the reactor 

building itself and the testing requirements to 

periodically demonstrate the integrity of the 

reactor building exist to ensure the plant’s 

ability to mitigate the consequences of an 

accident, and do not involve any accident 

precursors or initiators. Therefore, the 

probability of occurrence of an accident 

previously evaluated is not significantly 

increased by the proposed amendment. 

The integrity of the reactor building is 

subject to two (2) types of failure 

mechanisms which can be categorized as (1) 

activity based and (2) time based. Activity 

based failure 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 the reactor building 

containment integrity is not degraded by 

plant modifications or maintenance 

activities. The design and construction 

requirements of the reactor building itself 

combined with the reactor building 

inspections performed in accordance with 

ASME [American Society for Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code], 

Section XI, the Maintenance Rule and 

regulatory commitments serve to provide a 

high degree of assurance that the 

containment will not degrade in a manner 

that is detectable only by a Type A test. 

Based on the above, the proposed 

amendment does not involve a significant 

increase in the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluate. 

The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of [Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision 2–A, 

‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing 

Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix J,’’ October 2008 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML100620847)] for 

development of the WF3 performance-based 

testing program. Implementation of these 

guidelines continues to provide adequate 

assurance that during design basis accidents, 

the primary containment and its components 

will limit leakage rates to less than values 

assumed in the plant safety analyses. The 

potential consequences of extending the ILRT 

interval to fifteen (15) years have been 

evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes 

in risk. The increase in risk in terms of 

person-rem per year within fifty (50) miles 

resulting from design basis accidents was 

estimated to be acceptably small and 

determined to be within the guidelines 

published in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174. 

Additionally, the proposed change maintains 

defense-in-depth by preserving a reasonable 

balance among prevention of core damage, 

prevention of containment failure, and 

consequence mitigation. WF3 has determined 

that the increase in Conditional Containment 

Failure Probability due to the proposed 

change would be very small. Therefore, it is 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73110 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

concluded that the proposed amendment 

does not significantly increase the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Based on the above discussion, it is 

concluded that the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

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

2–A, for the development of the WF3 

performance-based leakage testing program, 

and establishes a fifteen (15) year interval for 

the performance of the reactor building ILRT. 

The reactor building and the testing 

requirements to periodically demonstrate the 

integrity of the reactor building exist to 

ensure the plant’s ability to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident, and do not 

involve any accident precursors or initiators. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change to the manner in which the plant 

is operated or controlled. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

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

2–A, for the development of the WF3 

performance-based leakage testing program, 

and establishes a fifteen (15) year interval for 

the performance of the containment ILRT. 

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 Reactor 

Building Leakage Rate Testing Program, as 

defined in the TS, ensure that the degree of 

the reactor building structural integrity and 

leak-tightness that is considered in the 

plant’s safety analysis is maintained. The 

overall reactor building leakage rate limit 

specified by the TS is maintained, and the 

Type A, Type B, and Type C containment 

leakage tests will be performed at the 

frequencies established in accordance with 

the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, 

Revision 2–A. 

Containment inspections performed in 

accordance with other plant programs serve 

to provide a high degree of assurance that the 

containment will not degrade in a manner 

that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk 

assessment using the current WF3 risk model 

concluded that extending the ILRT test 

interval from ten (10) years to fifteen (15) 

years results in a very small change to the 

WF3 risk profile. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Council— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island 

Nuclear Station, Unit 1, (TMI–1) 

Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: October 

30, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14304A083. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would change the 

TMI–1 technical specifications (TSs). 

Specifically, the proposed amendment 

would modify the TS Table 3.1.6.1, 

‘‘Pressure Isolation Check Valves 

between the Primary Coolant System & 

LPIS [Low Pressure Injection System],’’ 

maximum allowable leakage limits. 

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 amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes will not alter the 

way any structure, system, or component 

(SSC) functions, and will not alter the 

manner in which the plant is operated. In 

addition, the proposed amendment will not 

impact the ability of any SSC to mitigate an 

accident as currently evaluated in the UFSAR 

[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. 

This proposed change deletes certain 

Reactor Coolant System Pressure Isolation 

Valve (RCS PIV) allowable leakage 

surveillance testing criteria in consideration 

of the safety significance and design 

capabilities of the plant and current industry 

testing and maintenance practices. The 

proposed change is consistent with Improved 

Standard Technical Specification (ITS) 

NUREG 1430, [‘‘]Standard Technical 

Specifications, Babcock and Wilcox Plants,’’ 

Revision 4, and current RCS PIV leak testing 

practices. The maximum allowable leakage 

rate of 5 gpm [gallons per minute] remains 

unchanged; only the leakage testing 

incremental testing acceptance criteria below 

the 5 gpm limit is being deleted. Since the 

testing frequency and maximum allowable 

leakage remains unchanged, the probability 

or consequence of an interfacing system lossof-coolant accident (ISLOCA) is unaffected. 

There are no changes to the [American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME 

[Operation and Maintenance] OM Code 

leakage testing requirements and methods for 

this class of valves. Additionally, two 

typographical errors and one clerical error 

are being corrected which are administrative 

in nature. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed revision is not a result of 

changes to plant equipment, system design, 

or operating practices. The modified [limiting 

condition of operation] LCO requirement will 

allow some relaxation of the leak testing 

method acceptance criteria for the RCS PIVs, 

consistent with NUREG–1430. Since the 

functions of the associated systems will 

continue to perform without change, the 

proposed changes will not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do 

not introduce any new failure modes. 

Additionally, two typographical errors and 

one clerical error are being corrected which 

are administrative in nature. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed revision to the RCS PIV 

leakage testing acceptance criteria will not 

result in changes to system design or 

setpoints that are intended to ensure timely 

identification of plant conditions that could 

be precursors to accidents or potential 

degradation of accident mitigation systems. 

Since testing frequency and maximum 

allowable leakage for the RCS PIVs remain 

unchanged, the margin associated with the 

identification of RCS PIV degradation is not 

significantly reduced. The confidence in the 

ability of the fission product barriers (fuel 

cladding, RCS boundary, containment) to 

limit the level of radiation dose to the public 

remains the same. Additionally, two 

typographical errors and one clerical error 

are being corrected which are administrative 

in nature. 

Since the setpoints and design features that 

support the margin of safety are unchanged, 

and actions for inoperable systems continue 

to provide appropriate time limits and 

compensatory measures, the proposed 

changes will not significantly reduce the 

margin of safety. 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73111 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Esquire, Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 

and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of amendment request: 

November 25, 2013. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML13330A557. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications 

(TSs) to permit the use of Risk-Informed 

Completion Times (CTs) in accordance 

with Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) traveler, TSTF–505, Revision 1, 

‘‘Provide Risk-Informed Extended 

Completion Times—RITSTF [RiskedInformed TSTF] Initiative 4b.’’ The 

proposed amendment would, in part, 

modify selected Required Actions to 

permit extending the CTs in accordance 

with a new TS-required risk-informed 

completion time (RICT) program. The 

availability of the model safety 

evaluation for TSTF–505 was published 

by the NRC staff in the Federal Register 

on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15399,) for 

referencing in license amendment 

applications. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change permits the 

extension of CTs provided the associated risk 

is assessed and managed in accordance with 

the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed 

Completion Time (RICT) Program. The 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated because the 

change involves no change to the plant or its 

modes of operation. The proposed change 

does not increase the consequences of an 

accident [previously evaluated] because the 

design basis mitigation function of the 

affected systems is not changed and the 

consequences of an accident during the 

extended CT are no different from those 

during the existing CT. 

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] different kind of accident 

from any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not change the 

design, configuration, or method of operation 

of the plant. The proposed change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no 

new or different kind of equipment will be 

installed). 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change permit[s] the 

extension of CTs provided risk is assessed 

and managed in accordance with the NRC[- 

]approved RICT Program. The proposed 

change implements a risk-informed 

configuration management program to assure 

that adequate margins of safety are 

maintained. Application of these new 

specifications and the configuration 

management program considers cumulative 

effects of multiple systems or components 

being out of service and does so more 

effectively than the current TS. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

requested amendment involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, 

Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 

94120. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company Docket Nos.: 52–027 and 52– 

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

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

Accession No. ML14254A371. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed changes would revise the 

Combined Licenses by clarifying the 

position on design diversity, specifically 

human diversity, as related to the 

Component Interface Module (CIM) and 

Diverse Actuation System (DAS) design. 

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 requested amendment proposes 

changes to licensing basis documents to 

clarify the position on the human diversity 

aspects of design diversity as related to the 

Component Interface Module (CIM) and 

Diverse Actuation System (DAS) design 

processes. A review confirmed that the 

clarified position on human diversity would 

not change the CIM or DAS design. The 

requested changes to information presented 

in the Tier 2* and Tier 2 supporting 

documentation clarify the level of human 

diversity applied. The change continues to 

comply with the regulatory guidance in 

NUREG/CR–6303 regarding credible defenses 

against a postulated Common Cause Failure 

(CCF) of the Plant Monitoring and Safety 

System. The proposed change does not affect 

the plant itself. The change does not affect 

prevention and mitigation of abnormal 

events, e.g., accidents, anticipated 

operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods 

and turbine missiles, or their safety or design 

analyses. No safety-related structure, system, 

or component (SSC) or function is adversely 

affected. The change does not involve nor 

interface with any SSC accident initiator or 

initiating sequence of events, and thus, the 

probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR) are not affected. This activity will 

not allow for a new fission product release 

path, nor will it result in a new fission 

product barrier failure mode, nor create a 

new sequence of events that would result in 

significant fuel cladding failures. Because the 

proposed changes do not change any safetyrelated SSC or function credited in the 

mitigation of an accident, the consequences 

of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are 

not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes clarify the position 

on human diversity and show that the CIM/ 

DAS diversity meets the regulatory guidance 

in NUREG/CR–6303. The clarified 

descriptions do not affect the plant itself. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect 

any safety-related equipment itself, nor do 

they affect equipment whose failure could 

initiate an accident or a failure of a fission 

product barrier. No analysis is adversely 

affected by the proposed changes. No system 

or design function or equipment qualification 

would be adversely affected by the proposed 

changes. Furthermore, the proposed changes 

do not result in a new failure mode, 

malfunction, or sequence of events that could 

affect safety or safety-related equipment. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73112 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to information 

presented in referenced licensing basis 

documents clarify the position regarding 

human diversity and do not affect the plant 

itself. The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect the design, construction, or operation 

of any plant SSCs, including any equipment 

whose failure could initiate an accident or a 

failure of a fission product barrier. No 

analysis is adversely affected by the proposed 

changes. Furthermore, no system function, 

design function, or equipment qualification 

will be adversely affected by the changes. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. 

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004–2514. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company Docket Nos.: 52–027 and 52– 

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: October 

23, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14296A758. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed changes would revise the 

Combined Licenses (COLs) changing the 

description and scope of the Initial Test 

Program. Because, this proposed change 

requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control 

Document (DCD), the licensee also 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 

in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment is related to the 

conduct of the Initial Test Program. The 

proposed changes are made in compliance 

with the applicable regulatory guides, are 

only related to the general aspects of how the 

program is executed and do not change any 

technical content for preoperational or 

startup tests. No changes are made to any 

design aspect of the plant. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment is related to the 

conduct of the Initial Test Program. The 

proposed changes are made in compliance 

with the applicable regulatory guides, are 

only related to the general aspects of how the 

program is executed and do not change any 

technical content for preoperational or 

startup tests. These changes do not affect the 

design or analyzed operation of any system. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment is related to the 

conduct of the Initial Test Program. The 

proposed changes are made in compliance 

with the applicable regulatory guides, are 

only related to the general aspects of how the 

program is executed and do not change any 

technical content for preoperational or 

startup tests. No safety analysis or design 

basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged 

or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus 

no margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. 

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004–2514. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), 

Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: October 

16, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14290A139. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would amend 

Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and 

NPF–92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4. 

The requested amendment proposes 

changes to revise the VEGP Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), 

involving Tier 1 and associated Tier 2 

departures to add or delete piping line 

numbers of existing piping lines, or 

updating the functional capability 

classification of existing process flow 

lines. 

Because this proposed change 

requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 design control 

document (DCD), the licensee also 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 

in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The COL Appendix C Tables and 

corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 Tables 

proposed changes involve updating piping 

line name/number or functional capability 

requirements. These changes do not affect 

any system design function. Adding or 

updating information for existing ASME 

Section III piping does not involve (i.e., 

cannot affect) any accident initiating event or 

component failure, thus, the probabilities of 

the accidents previously evaluated are not 

affected. The maximum allowable leakage 

rate specified in the Technical Specifications 

is unchanged and radiological material 

release source terms are not affected, thus, 

the radiological releases in the accident 

analyses are not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The COL Appendix C Tables and 

corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 Tables 

proposed changes to update piping line 

name/number or functional capability 

requirements do not adversely affect the 

design or quality of any structure, system, or 

component. Adding or updating ASME 

Section III piping line information for 

existing process piping lines to a licensing 

table does not create a new fault or sequence 

of events that could result in a radioactive 

material release. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73113 

The COL Appendix C Tables and 

corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 Tables 

proposed changes involve updating piping 

line name/number or functional capability 

requirements information for new/existing 

process piping lines. Adding or updating the 

ASME Section III piping line name/number 

or functional capability requirements in the 

tables would not affect any radioactive 

material barrier. No safety analysis or design 

basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged 

or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, 

no margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

III. Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses, 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination, and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: 

November 7, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14311A158. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

revises a limited number of Technical 

Specification Surveillance 

Requirements by adding a note or 

footnote permitting a one-time 

extension from a refueling frequency 

(i.e., at least once per 18 months) to a 

maximum of 28 months. These 

surveillance requirements include (1) 

manual containment isolation actuation, 

(2) manual recirculation actuation and 

recirculation actuation logic, (3) steam 

generator level calibration, (4) visual 

examination of the high-efficiency 

particulate air and charcoal filters in the 

containment recirculating air cooling 

and filtering system, (5) emergency 

diesel generators, and (6) residual heat 

removal system integrity. An extension 

is necessary because these tests will 

expire before the next refueling outage 

begins on April 11, 2015. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: November 

17, 2014 (79 FR 68487). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

December 17, 2014 (public comments); 

January 17, 2015 (hearing requests). 

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

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

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: January 

28, 2013, as supplemented by letter 

dated August 28, 2013. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements related 

to direct current (DC) electrical systems 

as specified in TS Limiting Condition 

for Operation (LCO) 3.8.4, ‘‘DC 

Sources—Operating,’’ LCO 3.8.5, ‘‘DC 

Sources—Shutdown,’’ and LCO 3.8.6, 

‘‘Battery Parameters.’’ A new ‘‘Battery 

Monitoring and Maintenance Program’’ 

is now required under TS Section 5.5, 

‘‘Administrative Controls—Programs 

and Manuals.’’ These changes are 

consistent with the NRC-approved 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–500, Revision 2, 

‘‘DC Electrical Rewrite—Update to 

TSTF–360.’’ The availability of this TS 

improvement was announced in the 

Federal Register on September 1, 2011 

(76 FR 54510). 

Date of issuance: November 24, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 250. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14254A133; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications/license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25313). 

The supplemental letter dated August 

28, 2013, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 24, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73114 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–373, LaSalle County 

Station (LSCS), Unit 1, LaSalle County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: 

December 20, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated February 26, 2014, 

September 11, 2014 (2 letters), and 

October 14, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the LSCS, Unit 1, 

pressure and temperature curves, 

Figures 3.4.11–1 through 3.4.11–3, in 

Technical Specification 3.4.11, ‘‘RCS 

[Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and 

Temperature (P/T) Limits.’’ 

Date of issuance: November 25, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 210. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14288A151; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

11: Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45490). 

The supplemental letters dated 

September 11, 2014 (2 letters) and 

October 14, 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 November 25, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

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

C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: 

November 6, 2013, supplemented by 

letters dated June 13, 2014, and August 

15, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specification 3.6.13, Divider Barrier 

Integrity, Surveillance Requirement 

3.6.13.5 for the divider barrier seal 

inspection for the Donald C. Cook 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. 

Date of issuance: November 20, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 324 for Unit 1 and 

307 for Unit 2. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: The 

amendments revise the Facility 

Operating Licenses and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR 

9496). The supplemental letters dated 

June 13, 2014, and August 15, 2014, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 

Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: March 

11, 2013, as supplemented by letter 

dated July 3, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changes the reactor steam 

dome pressure value specified in 

technical specification (TS) 2.1.1, 

‘‘Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],’’ from 

785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) 

to 686 psig. This change resolves a 10 

CFR part 21, ‘‘Reporting of Defects and 

Noncompliance,’’ condition concerning 

a potential to momentarily violate the 

safety limit specified in TS 2.1.1.1 

during a pressure regulator failure 

maximum demand (open) transient. 

Date of issuance: November 25, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 185. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14281A318; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–22: This amendment revises 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 11, 2013 (78 FR 35064). 

The supplemental letter dated July 3, 

2014, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 25, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: May 23, 

2013, as supplemented by letter dated 

March 25, June 26, and October 20, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ to 

reference and allow use of 

Westinghouse report WCAP–16045–P– 

A, ‘‘Qualification of the TwoDimensional Transport Code 

PARAGON’’ and WCAP–16045–P–A, 

Addendum 1–A, ‘‘Qualification of the 

NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology,’’ to 

determine core operating limits. 

Date of issuance: November 19, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–211; Unit 

2–199. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14296A666; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–42, and DPR–60: These 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating License and the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 

51229). The supplements dated March 

25, June 26, and October 20, 2014, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73115 

1Request of the United States Postal Service to 

Add Priority Mail Contract 102 to Competitive 

Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of 

Unredacted Governors’ Decision, Contract, and 

Supporting Data, December 2, 2014 (Request). 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

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

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 

3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: July 2, 

2013, and revised by letters dated 

February 14, and June 20, 2014, and 

supplemented by letters dated August 

28 and October 14, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the design of 

connections between reinforced 

concrete and steel plate concrete 

composite construction included in the 

VEGP, Units 3 and 4 updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and 

changes to the Technical Report, ‘‘APP– 

GW–GLR–602, AP1000 Shield Building 

Design Details for Select Wall and RC/ 

SC Connections,’’ (prepared by 

Westinghouse Electric Company and 

reviewed by the NRC as part of the 

design certification rule). This 

Technical Report is incorporated by 

reference in the VEGP, Units 3 and 4 

UFSAR. 

Date of issuance: November 21, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 26. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14322A275; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 

54287). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 21, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 

54287). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 21, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of December 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28704 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2015–13 and CP2015–16; 

Order No. 2269] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing concerning 

the addition of Priority Mail Contract 

102 negotiated service agreement. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: December 

10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Notice of Commission Action 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 

and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal 

Service filed a formal request and 

associated supporting information to 

add Priority Mail Contract 102 to the 

competitive product list.1

The Postal Service 

contemporaneously filed a redacted 

contract related to the proposed new 

product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 

39 CFR 3015.5. Id. Attachment B. 

To support its Request, the Postal 

Service filed a copy of the contract, a 

copy of the Governors’ Decision 

authorizing the product, proposed 

changes to the Mail Classification 

Schedule, a Statement of Supporting 

Justification, a certification of 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and 

an application for non-public treatment 

of certain materials. It also filed 

supporting financial workpapers. 

II. Notice of Commission Action 

The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. MC2015–13 and CP2015–16 to 

consider the Request pertaining to the 

proposed Priority Mail Contract 102 

product and the related contract, 

respectively. 

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s filings in 

the captioned dockets are consistent 

with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 

3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 

CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are 

due no later than December 10, 2014. 

The public portions of these filings can 

be accessed via the Commission’s Web 

site (http://www.prc.gov). 

The Commission appoints Kenneth R. 

Moeller to serve as Public 

Representative in these dockets. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. MC2015–13 and CP2015–16 to 

consider the matters raised in each 

docket. 

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth 

R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an 

officer of the Commission to represent 

the interests of the general public in 

these proceedings (Public 

Representative). 

3. Comments are due no later than 

December 10, 2014. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28744 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail 

Negotiated Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Effective date: December 9, 2014. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES