Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 77041 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting; National 

Science Board 

The National Science Board’s 

Executive Committee, pursuant to NSF 

regulations (45 CFR part 614), the 

National Science Foundation Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the 

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 

U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the 

scheduling of a teleconference for the 

transaction of National Science Board 

business, as follows: 

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 

from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. EST. 

SUBJECT MATTER: (1) Chairman’s opening 

remarks; and (2) Discussion of agenda 

for the February 2015 meeting. 

STATUS: Open. 

This meeting will be held by 

teleconference at the National Science 

Board Office, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA 22230. A public listening 

line will be available. Members of the 

public must contact the Board Office 

[call 703–292–7000 or send an email 

message to nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov] 

at least 24 hours prior to the 

teleconference for the public listening 

number. 

Please refer to the National Science 

Board Web site www.nsf.gov/nsb for 

additional information. Meeting 

information and updates (time, place, 

subject matter or status of meeting) may 

be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/ 

notices/. Point of contact for this 

meeting is: James Hamos, 4201 Wilson 

Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 

(703) 292–8000. 

Ann Bushmiller, 

Senior Counsel to the National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30179 Filed 12–19–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–255–LA; ASLBP No. 15– 

936–03–LA–BD01] 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; 

Establishment of Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board 

Pursuant to delegation by the 

Commission, see 37 FR 28,710 (Dec. 29, 

1972), and the Commission’s 

regulations, see, e.g., 10 CFR 2.104, 

2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313, 2.318, 2.321, 

notice is hereby given that an Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is 

being established to preside over the 

following proceeding: Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear 

Plant). 

This proceeding involves an 

application by Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc. (Entergy) for a license 

amendment for Palisades Nuclear Plant, 

located in Van Buren County, Michigan. 

In response to a notice filed in the 

Federal Register, see 79 FR 58,812 

(Sept. 30, 2014), a Petition to Intervene 

was filed on December 1, 2014 by 

Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, 

Michigan Safe Energy Future— 

Shoreline Chapter, and the Nuclear 

Energy Information Service. 

The Board is comprised of the 

following administrative judges: 

Ronald M. Spritzer, Chairman, Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Dr. Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

Dr. Thomas J. Hirons, Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

All correspondence, documents, and 

other materials shall be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule. 

See 10 CFR 2.302. 

Rockville, Maryland. 

Dated: December 17, 2014. 

E. Roy Hawkens, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30060 Filed 12–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0271] 

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 

27, 2014 to December 10, 2014. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

December 9, 2014. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

January 22, 2015. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by February 23, 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–2014–0271. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0271 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–2014–0271. 

• 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

77042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

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– 

0271 in the subject line of your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave to Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://www.nrc.

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

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/

petitioner to relief. A requestor/

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 77043 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, then any hearing held 

would take place before the issuance of 

any amendment unless the Commission 

finds an imminent danger to the health 

or safety of the public, in which case it 

will issue an appropriate order or rule 

under 10 CFR part 2. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://www.

nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/gettingstarted.html. System requirements for 

accessing the E-Submittal server are 

detailed in the NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for 

Electronic Submission,’’ which is 

available on the agency’s public Web 

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://www.

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

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

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

NRC Meta System Help Desk is 

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

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

77044 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

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. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power 

Station, Unit 2, New London County, 

Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: June 30, 

2014. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14188B189. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specifications (TSs) requirements to 

adopt the changes described in the 

NRC’s approved Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specifications 

Change Traveler TSTF–426, Revision 5, 

‘‘Revise or Add Actions to Preclude 

Entry into LCO 3.0.3–TSTF Initiatives 

6b and 6c.’’ 

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 provides a short 

Allowed Outage Time to restore an 

inoperable system for conditions under 

which the existing Technical Specifications 

require a plant shutdown to begin within one 

hour in accordance with LCO 3.0.3. Entering 

into Technical Specification Actions is not 

an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The consequences of 

any previously evaluated accident that may 

occur during the proposed Allowed Outage 

Times are no different than the consequences 

of the same accident during the existing one 

hour allowance. As a result, the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of 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. 

No new or different accidents result from 

the proposed change. The changes do not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., 

no new or different type of equipment will 

be installed) or a change in the methods 

governing normal plant operation. In 

addition, the changes do not impose any new 

or different requirements. The proposed 

changes do not alter assumptions made in the 

safety analysis. 

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 change increases the allowed 

outage time MPS2 may continue to operate 

without the operability of any one of the five 

identified systems proposed in this change 

for up to 24 hours. The analyses in WCAP– 

16125–NP–A, ‘‘Justification for RiskInformed Modifications to Selected 

Technical Specifications for Conditions 

Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,’’ 

Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that 

this limited increase in AOT results in an 

acceptably small increase in risk due to a 

limited period of continued operation in 

these conditions and that the associated risk 

is balanced by avoiding the similar risks 

associated with a plant shutdown. As a 

result, the change to the margin of safety 

proposed by modifying a plant shutdown 

within one hour is not significant. 

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 

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, Unit 3, New London County, 

Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: May 8, 

2014, as supplemented by letters dated 

August 14, October 15, and October 16, 

2014. Publicly-available versions are in 

ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML14133A009, ML14234A097, 

ML14294A452, and ML14294A451. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip 

System (RTS) Instrumentation’’ and TS 

3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature 

Actuation System (ESFAS) 

Instrumentation,’’ to adopt Completion 

Time (CT) and test bypass time changes. 

These changes have been approved by 

the NRC in Topical Reports WCAP– 

14333–P–A, ‘‘Probabilistic Risk 

Analysis of the RPS and ESFAS Test 

Times and Completion Times,’’ 

Revision 1, dated October 1998, and 

WCAP–1 5376–P–A, ‘‘Risk-informed 

Assessment of the RTS and ESFAS 

Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor 

Trip Breaker Test and Completion 

Times,’’ Revision 1, dated March 2003. 

As discussed in the supplement dated 

August 14, 2014, the licensee 

subsequently deleted certain changes 

requested in the May 8, 2014 

application. Those changes were deleted 

because they were found by the NRC 

staff to be unsupported by the scope of 

the provisions approved by WCAP– 

14333–P–A, Revision 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. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Response: No. 

Overall protection system performance will 

remain within the bounds of the previously 

performed accident analyses since no 

hardware changes are proposed. The same 

RTS [Reactor Trip System] and ESFAS 

[Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 

System] instrumentation will continue to be 

used. The protection systems will continue to 

function in a manner consistent with the 

plant design basis. These changes to the TS 

do not result in a condition where the design, 

material, and construction standards that 

were applicable prior to the change are 

altered. 

The proposed changes will not modify any 

system interface. The proposed changes will 

not affect the probability of any event 

initiators. There will be no degradation in the 

performance of or an increase in the number 

of challenges imposed on safety-related 

equipment assumed to function during an 

accident situation. There will be no change 

to normal plant operating parameters or 

accident mitigation performance. The 

proposed changes will not alter any 

assumptions or change any mitigation actions 

in the radiological consequence evaluations 

in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 77045 

The determination that the results of the 

proposed changes are acceptable was 

established in the NRC Safety Evaluations 

prepared for WCAP–14333–P–A, (issued by 

letter dated July 15, 1998) and for WCAP–1 

5376–P–A, (issued by letter dated December 

20, 2002). Implementation of the proposed 

changes will result in an insignificant risk 

impact. Applicability of these conclusions 

has been verified through plant-specific 

reviews and implementation of the generic 

analysis results in accordance with the 

respective NRC Safety Evaluation conditions. 

The proposed changes to the CTs, and test 

bypass times reduce the potential for 

inadvertent reactor trips and spurious 

engineered safeguard features actuations, and 

therefore do not increase the probability of 

any accident previously evaluated. The 

proposed changes do not change the response 

of the plant to any accidents and have an 

insignificant impact on the reliability of the 

RTS and ESFAS signals. The RTS and ESFAS 

will remain highly reliable and the proposed 

changes will not result in a significant 

increase in the risk of plant operation. This 

is demonstrated by showing that the impact 

on plant safety, as measured by the increase 

in core damage frequency (CDF) is less than 

1.OE–06 per year and the increase in large 

early release frequency (LERF) is less than 

1.OE–07 per year. In addition, for the CT 

changes, the incremental conditional core 

damage probabilities (ICCDP) and 

incremental conditional large early release 

probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.OE–07 

and 5.OE–08, respectively. These changes 

meet the acceptance criteria in Regulatory 

Guides (RGs) 1.174 and 1.177. 

Therefore, since the RTS and ESFAS will 

continue to perform their functions with high 

reliability, as originally assumed, and the 

increase in risk, as measured by CDF, LERF, 

ICCDP, ICLERP risk metrics, is within the 

acceptance criteria of existing regulatory 

guidance, there will not be a significant 

increase in the consequences of any 

accidents. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed changes do not alter or prevent 

the ability of structures, systems, and 

components from performing their intended 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The proposed changes do 

not affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release assumptions 

used in evaluating the radiological 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed changes are 

consistent with safety analysis assumptions 

and resultant consequences. 

Therefore, this change does not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Do proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

There are no hardware changes nor are 

there any changes in the method by which 

any safety-related plant system performs its 

safety function. The proposed changes will 

not affect the normal method of plant 

operation. No performance requirements will 

be affected or eliminated. The proposed 

changes will not result in physical alteration 

to any plant system nor there any change in 

the method by which any safety-related plant 

system performs its safety function. There 

will be no setpoint changes or changes to 

accident analysis assumptions. 

No new accident scenarios, transient 

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures are introduced as a result of 

these changes. There will be no adverse effect 

or challenges imposed on any safety-related 

system as a result of these changes. 

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 a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

acceptance criteria for any analyzed event 

nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis 

Limit. There will be no effect on the manner 

in which safety limits, limiting safety system 

settings, or limiting conditions for operation 

are determined nor will there be any effect 

on those plant systems necessary to assure 

the accomplishment of protection functions. 

There will be no impact on the departure 

from nucleate boiling limits, fuel centerline 

temperature, or any other margin of safety. 

The radiological dose consequence 

acceptance criteria listed in the NUREG– 

0800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review 

of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power 

Plants,’’ will continue to be met. 

Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are 

maintained, and diversity with regard of the 

signals that provide reactor trip and 

engineered safety features actuation is also 

maintained. All signals credited as primary 

or secondary, and all operator actions 

credited in the accident analyses will remain 

the same. The proposed changes will not 

result in plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. The calculated 

impact on risk is insignificant and meets the 

acceptance criteria contained in RGs 1.174 

and 1.177. 

Implementation of the proposed changes is 

expected to result in an overall improvement 

in safety, as follows: 

• Improvements in the effectiveness of the 

operating staff in monitoring and controlling 

plant operation will be realized. This is due 

to less frequent distraction of the operators 

and shift supervisor to attend to 

instrumentation Required Actions with short 

CTs. 

• Longer repair times associated with 

increased CTs will lead to higher quality 

repairs and improved reliability. 

• The CT extensions for the reactor trip 

breakers will provide additional time to 

complete test and maintenance activities 

while at power, potentially reducing the 

number of forced outages related to 

compliance with reactor trip breaker CT, and 

provide consistency with the CT for the logic 

trains. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– 

341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: October 

21, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14295A078. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

replace the current emergency action 

level scheme with the scheme described 

in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99–01, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency 

Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors’’ 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML110240324). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to DTE’s EAL 

[emergency action level] scheme to adopt the 

NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99–01, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency 

Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ do 

not reduce the capability to meet the 

emergency planning requirements 

established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, 

Appendix E. The proposed changes do not 

reduce the functionality, performance, or 

capability of DTE’s ERO [Emergency 

Response Organization] to respond in 

mitigating the consequences of any design 

basis accident. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

requirements of the Operating License or the 

Technical Specifications. The proposed 

changes do not modify any plant equipment 

and do not impact any failure modes that 

could lead to an accident. The proposed 

changes do not impact the consequence of an 

analyzed accident since the changes do not 

affect equipment related to accident 

mitigation. The proposed changes do not 

involve any physical changes to plant 

equipment or systems, nor do they alter the 

assumptions of any accident analyses. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

77046 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

proposed changes do not adversely affect 

accident initiators or precursors nor do they 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 

configuration or the manner in which the 

plant is operated and maintained. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect the 

ability of Structures, Systems, or Components 

(SSCs) to perform their intended safety 

functions in mitigating the consequences of 

an initiating event. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed EAL changes to adopt the 

NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99–01, 

Revision 6, do not involve any physical 

changes to plant systems or equipment. The 

proposed changes do not involve the 

addition of any new plant equipment. The 

proposed changes will not alter the design 

configuration, or method of operation of 

plant equipment beyond its normal 

functional capabilities. All DTE ERO 

functions will continue to be performed as 

required. The proposed changes do not create 

any new credible failure mechanisms, 

malfunctions, or accident initiators. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from those that have been 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed EAL changes to adopt the 

NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99–01, 

Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a design 

basis or safety limit. There is no change being 

made to safety analysis assumptions, safety 

limits, or limiting safety system settings that 

would adversely affect plant safety as a result 

of the proposed changes. There are no 

changes to setpoints or environmental 

conditions of any SSC or the manner in 

which any SSC is operated. Margins of safety 

are unaffected by the proposed changes to 

adopt the NEI 99–01, Revision 6 EAL scheme 

guidance. The applicable requirements of 10 

CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will 

continue to be met. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve any reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. Maters, 

DTE Energy, General Counsel— 

Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, 

Detroit, MI 48226–1279. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station (LGS), 

Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: 

November 3, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14308A144. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would add 

new Limiting Conditions for Operation 

(LCOs) 3.0.5 and 3.0.6 to the 

Applicability section of the Technical 

Specifications (TSs). The LCO 3.0.5 

would establish an allowance for 

restoring equipment to service, under 

administrative controls, when the 

equipment has been removed from 

service or declared inoperable to 

comply with TS Action requirements. 

The LCO 3.0.6 would provide actions to 

be taken when the inoperability of a 

support system results in the 

inoperability of the related supported 

systems. In addition, the proposed 

amendment would add the Safety 

Function Determination Program to the 

Administrative Controls section of the 

TSs. This program is intended to ensure 

that a loss of safety function is detected 

and appropriate actions are taken when 

LCO 3.0.6 is entered. 

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 involve the addition 

of a new Limiting Condition for Operation 

(LCO) 3.0.5 to the Applicability Section of 

the Limerick Generating Station (LGS) 

Technical Specifications (TS) which allows 

restoration of equipment to service under 

administrative controls when it has been 

removed from service or declared inoperable 

to comply with TS Action requirements. The 

potential impact of temporarily returning the 

equipment to service is considered to be 

insignificant since the equipment has been 

restored to a condition which is expected to 

provide the required safety function. 

Returning the equipment to service for 

operability testing will promote timely 

restoration of the equipment and reduce the 

probability of events that may have been 

prevented or mitigated by such operable 

equipment. Since the equipment to be 

restored is already out of service, the 

availability of the equipment has been 

previously considered in the evaluation of 

consequences of an accident. Temporarily 

returning the equipment to service in a state 

which is expected to function as required to 

mitigate the consequences of a previously 

analyzed accident will promote timely 

restoration of the equipment and restore the 

capabilities of the equipment to mitigate the 

consequences of any events previously 

analyzed. 

Additionally, the proposed changes 

involve the addition of a new LCO 3.0.6 to 

the Applicability Section of the LGS TS that 

provides appropriate actions to be taken 

when the inoperability of a support system 

results in the inoperability of related 

supported systems. Furthermore, the 

proposed changes involve adding new Safety 

Function Determination Program (SFDP) 

requirements to the Administrative Section 

of the LGS TS to ensure that a loss of safety 

function is detected and appropriate actions 

are taken when LCO 3.0.6 is entered. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

physical design of any plant structure, 

system, or component; therefore, the 

proposed changes have no adverse effect on 

plant operation, or the availability or 

operation of any accident mitigation 

equipment. The plant response to the design 

basis accidents does not change. 

Also, the proposed changes conform to 

NRC regulatory requirements regarding the 

content of plant TS as identified in 10 CFR 

50.36, and also the guidance as approved by 

the NRC in NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specifications-General Electric 

BWR [boiling-water reactor]/4 Plants.’’ 

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 include the addition 

of a new LCO 3.0.5 to the Applicability 

Section of the LGS TS which allows 

restoration of equipment to service under 

administrative controls when it has been 

removed from service or declared inoperable 

to comply with TS Action requirements. 

Operation with the inoperable equipment 

temporarily restored to service is not 

considered a new mode of operation since 

existing procedures and administrative 

controls prevent the restoration of equipment 

to service until it is considered capable of 

providing the required safety function. 

Performance of the operability testing is 

considered to be a confirmatory check of that 

capability which demonstrates that the 

equipment is indeed operable. For those 

times when equipment which may be 

temporarily returned to service under 

administrative controls is subsequently 

determined to be inoperable, the resulting 

condition is comparable to the equipment 

having been determined to be inoperable 

during operation, with continued operation 

for a specified time allowed to complete 

required TS Actions. Since this condition has 

been previously evaluated in the 

development of the current TS, the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated is not created. 

The proposed changes also involve the 

addition of a new LCO 3.0.6 to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 77047 

Applicability Section of the LGS TS that 

provides appropriate actions to be taken 

when the inoperability of a support system 

results in the inoperability of related 

supported systems. Likewise, the proposed 

changes involve the addition of new Safety 

Function Determination Program (SFDP) 

requirements to the Administrative Section 

of the LGS TS to ensure that a loss of safety 

function is detected and appropriate actions 

are taken when LCO 3.0.6 is entered. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

plant configuration (no new or different type 

of equipment is being installed) or require 

any new or unusual operator actions. The 

proposed changes do not alter the safety 

limits or safety analysis assumptions 

associated with the operation of the plant. 

The proposed changes do not introduce any 

new failure modes that could result in a new 

accident. The proposed changes do not 

reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of 

any plant structure, system, or component in 

the performance of their safety function. 

Also, the response of the plant and the 

operators following the design basis 

accidents is unaffected by the proposed 

changes. 

In addition, the proposed changes conform 

to NRC regulatory requirements regarding the 

content of plant TS as identified in 10 CFR 

50.36, and also the guidance as approved by 

the NRC in NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specifications-General Electric 

BWR/4 Plants.’’ 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes involve the addition 

of a new LCO 3.0.5 to the Applicability 

Section of the LGS TS which allows 

restoration of equipment to service under 

administrative controls when it has been 

removed from service or declared inoperable 

to comply with TS Action requirements. 

Temporarily returning inoperable 

equipment to service for the purpose of 

confirming operability, places the plant in a 

condition which has been previously 

evaluated and determined to be acceptable 

for short periods. Additionally, the 

equipment has been determined to be in a 

condition which provides the previously 

determined margin of safety. The 

performance of the operability testing simply 

confirms the expected result and capability 

of the equipment. 

Additionally, the proposed changes 

involve the addition of a new LCO 3.0.6 to 

the Applicability Section of the LGS TS that 

provides appropriate actions to be taken 

when the inoperability of a support system 

results in the inoperability of related 

supported systems. The proposed changes 

also involve adding new Safety Function 

Determination Program (SFDP) requirements 

to the Administrative Section of the LGS TS 

to ensure that a loss of safety function is 

detected and appropriate actions are taken 

when LCO 3.0.6 is entered. 

The proposed changes have no adverse 

effect on plant operation, or the availability 

or operation of any accident mitigation 

equipment. The plant response to the design 

basis accidents does not change. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect 

existing plant safety margins or the reliability 

of the equipment assumed to operate in the 

safety analyses. There is no change being 

made to safety analysis assumptions, safety 

limits or limiting safety system settings that 

would adversely affect plant safety as a result 

of the proposed changes. 

In addition, the proposed changes conform 

to NRC regulatory requirements regarding the 

content of plant TS as identified in 10 CFR 

50.36, and also the guidance as approved by 

the NRC in NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specifications-General Electric 

BWR/4 Plants.’’ 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and 

Deputy General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station 

(CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: August 

26, 2014. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14246A203. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the CNS Technical Specifications (TS) 

and TS Bases by deleting Option b from 

TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 

3.5.2.1 and its associated Bases. Option 

b allows use of Condensate Storage 

Tank (CST) ‘A’ as an alternative source 

of makeup water to the Reactor Pressure 

Vessel during MODE 4 and MODE 5, but 

CST ‘A’ is not qualified to Seismic 

Category I. 

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. 

It does not alter assumptions or results of 

analyses that verify [Emergency Core Cooling 

Systems (ECCS)] are capable of performing 

their design functions during or after a [lossof-coolant accident (LOCA)]. It does impose 

a restriction on plant operation, but the 

restriction does not affect any accident 

initiator, and it improves accident mitigation 

capability. The proposed amendment does 

not change any results of previously 

evaluated accidents in the Updated Safety 

Analysis Report (USAR) nor events with 

which the plant must be able to cope (e.g., 

earthquake, flooding, turbine missiles, and 

fire). ECCS operating procedures and 

administrative controls that are affected do 

not increase the likelihood of an event, nor 

do they change mitigating capabilities. 

The probability of occurrence remains the 

same as already presented in the USAR for 

initiating events. Thus, since the 

probabilities and consequences continue to 

meet the licensing basis, they are not 

significant changes. 

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. 

This proposed TS amendment makes no 

physical change in the plant. It does not 

change the design functions of ECCS nor 

Condensate Storage Systems or components. 

The restriction on ECCS alignment preserves 

their availability and does not create the 

possibility of a new or different accident. It 

does not introduce a new or different kind of 

accident due to credible new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators not considered in the design and 

licensing bases. 

Therefore, the proposed change does 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 a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

LOCA analysis results are not changed nor 

affected by the restriction on ECCS alignment 

to the suppression pool, because it is 

consistent with conditions assumed in the 

analysis. Thus, the conservatism in the 

evaluation and analysis methods are 

maintained. The safety margin before the TS 

change is the same as after the change. This 

change does not exceed or alter a design basis 

or safety limit and does not significantly 

reduce the margin of safety. Since, the draindown events in MODES 4 and 5 are bounded 

by the LOCA analysis, the change to TS 

which prohibit their alignment to the CST 

also do not reduce the 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 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

77048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

Attorney for licensee: John C. 

McClure, Nebraska Public Power 

District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, 

NE 68602–0499. 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: Eric R. 

Oesterle. 

Southern California Edison Company 

(SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50–206, 50– 

361, 50–362, and 72–041, San Onofre 

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), 

Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage Installation, San Diego 

County, California 

Date of amendment request: March 

31, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated October 21, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML14092A249 and 

ML14297A016. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the SONGS facility operating 

license by revising the emergency action 

level (EAL) scheme consistent with the 

SONGS permanent shutdown and 

defueled status. On June 12, 2013, SCE 

submitted a certification of permanent 

cessation of power operations pursuant 

to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that SCE 

had decided to permanently cease 

power operation of SONGS effective 

June 7, 2013. With the docketing of 

subsequent certifications for permanent 

removal of fuel from the reactor vessels 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii) on 

June 28, 2013, and July 22, 2013, for 

Units 3 and 2, respectively, the 10 CFR 

part 50 license for SONGS Units 2 and 

3 no longer authorizes operation of the 

reactor or emplacement or retention of 

fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified 

in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). SONGS, Unit 1, 

was permanently shut down in 1993 

and is in the decommissioning phase. 

The proposed changes to the EAL 

scheme are being submitted to the NRC 

for approval prior to implementation, as 

required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and 

10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section 

IV.B.2. 

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.] 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 

(SONGS) Units 2 and 3 have permanently 

ceased operation. The proposed amendment 

would replace the existing EAL scheme with 

an EAL scheme that reflects the permanently 

shut-down status of the plant. The proposed 

Emergency Action Level Scheme is based on 

NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 99–01, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency 

Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ 

Appendix C for permanently defueled 

stations. The proposed amendment has no 

effect on structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) and no effect on the 

capability of any plant SSC to perform its 

design function. The proposed amendment 

would not increase the likelihood of the 

malfunction of any plant SSC. 

The spent fuel pool and its support 

systems are used for spent fuel storage. It is 

expected that SONGS will remain in a wet 

fuel storage configuration for approximately 

five years. In this condition, the spectrum of 

postulated accidents is much smaller than for 

an operational plant. As a result of the 

certifications submitted by SCE in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the 

consequent removal of authorization to 

operate the reactor or to place or retain fuel 

in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios 

postulated in the SONGS Final Safety 

Analysis Report are no longer possible, and 

there is no significant increase in 

consequences of previously postulated 

accidents. 

The proposed license amendment will not 

significantly increase the probability of 

occurrence of previously evaluated accidents, 

since most previously analyzed accidents can 

no longer occur and the probability or 

consequences of the few remaining are 

unaffected by the proposed amendment. 

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 does not involve 

any change in the plant’s design, 

configuration, or operation. The proposed 

changes have no impact on facility SSCs 

affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or 

in the methods of operation of such SSCs, or 

on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel 

itself. The proposed EAL scheme is for the 

plant’s defueled condition. There is no 

impact on the prevention, diagnosis, or 

mitigation of accidents previously evaluated. 

Accidents cannot result in different or more 

adverse failure modes or accidents than those 

previously evaluated because the reactors are 

permanently shut down and defueled and 

SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the 

reactors. 

The proposed EAL scheme does not make 

changes to the systems credited in the 

remaining relevant accident analyses. No 

changes are being made to parameters within 

which the plant is normally operated or in 

the setpoints which initiate protective or 

mitigating actions, and no new failure modes 

are being introduced or new accident 

precursors that could initiate a new or 

different kind of accident. Proper control and 

monitoring of safety significant parameters 

and activities such as dose assessments to 

determine any radiological releases and 

provisions for communications and 

coordination with offsite organizations will 

be maintained. 

The proposed amendment does not 

introduce a new mode of plant operation or 

new accident precursors, does not involve 

any physical alterations to plant 

configuration, or make changes to system 

setpoints that could initiate a new or 

different kind of accident. 

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 to the EAL 

scheme will provide thresholds for initiation 

of Emergency Planning actions that are 

commensurate with the permanently 

defueled condition of the station. The 

proposed amendment does not involve a 

change in the plant’s design, configuration, 

or operation. The proposed amendment does 

not affect either the way in which the plant 

SSCs perform their safety function or its 

design and licensing bases. 

Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for 

SONGS no longer authorize operation of the 

reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel 

into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated 

accidents associated with reactor operation is 

no longer possible. The proposed amendment 

does not adversely affect the inputs or 

assumptions of any of the design basis 

analyses that impact the applicable 

postulated accidents. 

The proposed changes to the SONGS EAL 

scheme do not impact the safe storage of 

irradiated fuel. The revised scheme does not 

affect any requirements for SSCs credited in 

the remaining analyses of applicable 

postulated accidents; and as such, does not 

significantly reduce the margin of safety 

associated with these accident analyses. 

Postulated design basis accidents involving 

the reactor are no longer possible because the 

reactor is permanently shut down and 

defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized 

to operate the reactors. 

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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Walker A. 

Matthews, Esquire, Southern California 

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 77049 

Southern California Edison Company 

(SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50–206, 50– 

361, 50–362, and 72–041, San Onofre 

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), 

Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage Installation, San Diego 

County, California 

Date of amendment request: March 

31, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated October 21, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML14092A314 and 

ML14345A338. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the SONGS facility operating 

license by revising the emergency plan 

consistent with the SONGS permanent 

shutdown and defueled status. On June 

12, 2013, SCE submitted a certification 

of permanent cessation of power 

operations pursuant to the 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that SCE had 

decided to permanently cease power 

operation of SONGS effective June 7, 

2013. With the docketing of subsequent 

certifications for permanent removal of 

fuel from the reactor vessels pursuant to 

10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii) on June 28, 2013, 

and July 22, 2013, for Units 3 and 2, 

respectively, the 10 CFR part 50 license 

for SONGS, Units 2 and 3, no longer 

authorizes operation of the reactor or 

emplacement or retention of fuel into 

the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 

CFR 50.82(a)(2). SONGS, Unit 1, was 

permanently shut down in 1993 and is 

in the decommissioning phase. The 

proposed changes to the emergency plan 

are being submitted to the NRC for 

approval prior to implementation, as 

required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and 

10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section 

IV.B.2. 

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. 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 

(SONGS Units 2 and 3 have permanently 

ceased operation (Reference 6.5.1). The 

proposed amendment would replace the 

Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

(RERP) with the Permanently Defueled 

Emergency Plan (PDEP) to correspond to the 

reduced scope of remaining accidents and 

events. The proposed changes discontinue 

offsite emergency planning activities and 

reduce the scope of onsite emergency 

planning as a result of the substantially lower 

onsite and offsite radiological consequences 

of accidents possible at SONGS. The 

proposed amendment is consistent with the 

criterion discussed in Interim Staff Guidance 

[ISG] NSIR/DPR [Office of Nuclear Security 

and Incident Response/Division of 

Preparedness & Response]-ISG–02, 

‘‘Emergency Planning Exemption Requests 

for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants.’’ 

The proposed amendment has no effect on 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

and no effect on the capability of any plant 

SSC to perform its design function. The 

proposed amendment would not increase the 

likelihood of the malfunction of any plant 

SSC. 

The spent fuel pool and its support 

systems are used for spent fuel storage. It is 

estimated that SONGS will remain in a wet 

fuel storage configuration for approximately 

five years. In this condition, the spectrum of 

postulated accidents is much smaller than for 

an operational plant. As a result of the 

certifications submitted by SCE in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the 

consequent removal of authorization to 

operate the reactor or to place or retain fuel 

in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios 

postulated in the SONGS Final Safety 

Analysis Report are no longer possible. The 

proposed amendment continues to maintain 

the effectiveness for coping with radiological 

emergencies that are postulated to occur in 

the permanently defueled condition. The 

ability to identify, assess, and mitigate these 

remaining events will be maintained such 

that there will be no significant increase in 

the consequences of any event. 

The proposed license amendment will not 

significantly increase the probability of 

occurrence of previously evaluated accidents, 

since most previously analyzed accidents can 

no longer occur and the probability or 

consequences of the few remaining are 

unaffected by the proposed amendment. 

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 does not involve 

any change in the plant’s design, 

configuration, or operation. The proposed 

changes discontinue offsite emergency 

planning activities and reduce the scope of 

onsite emergency planning as a result of the 

substantially lower onsite and offsite 

radiological consequences of accidents 

possible at SONGS. The proposed changes 

have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the 

safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the 

methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the 

handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. 

The SONGS PDEP is for the plant’s defueled 

condition. There is no impact on the 

prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation [of] 

accidents previously evaluated. Accidents 

cannot result in different or more adverse 

failure modes or accidents than those 

previously evaluated because the reactors are 

permanently shut down and defueled and 

SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the 

reactors. 

The proposed PDEP does not make changes 

to the systems credited in the remaining 

relevant accident analyses. The proposed 

PDEP continues to require proper control and 

monitoring of safety significant parameters 

and activities and continues to require dose 

assessments to determine any radiological 

releases and to maintain prompt 

communications with offsite organizations. 

The proposed amendment does not result 

in any new mechanisms that could initiate 

damage to the remaining relevant safety 

barriers for defueled plants (i.e., fuel 

cladding and spent fuel pool inventory). 

Since extended operation in a defueled 

condition is the only operation currently 

allowed, and therefore bounded by the 

existing analyses, such a condition does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident. 

The proposed amendment does not 

introduce a new mode of plant operation or 

new accident precursors, does not involve 

any physical alterations to plant 

configuration, or make changes to system 

setpoints that could initiate a new or 

different kind of accident. 

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 does not involve 

a change in the plant’s design, configuration, 

or operation. The proposed amendment does 

not affect either the way in which the plant 

SSCs perform their safety function or its 

design and licensing bases. 

Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for 

SONGS no longer authorize operation of the 

reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel 

into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated 

accidents associated with reactor operation is 

no longer possible. The proposed amendment 

does not adversely affect the inputs or 

assumptions of any of the remaining design 

basis analyses. 

The proposed changes that are limited to 

the SONGS PDEP do not impact the safe 

storage of irradiated fuel. The revised PDEP 

does not affect any requirements for SSCs 

credited in the remaining analyses of 

applicable postulated accidents; and as such, 

does not significantly reduce the margin of 

safety associated with these accident 

analyses. Postulated design basis accidents 

involving the reactor are no longer possible 

because the reactor is permanently shut 

down and defueled and SONGS is no longer 

authorized to operate the reactors. 

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 requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

77050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

Attorney for licensee: Walker A. 

Matthews, Esquire, Southern California 

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, South Carolina Public 

Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395, 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 

1, Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

November 12, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14324A217. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment includes a 

revision to the site’s Radiation 

Emergency Plan to relocate the 

Technical Support Center. 

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 to the VCSNS 

emergency plan does not impact the physical 

function of plant structures, systems, or 

components (SSC) or the manner in which 

SSCs perform their design function. The 

proposed changes neither adversely affect 

accident initiators or precursors, nor alter 

design assumptions. The proposed changes 

do not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to 

perform their intended function to mitigate 

the consequences of an initiating event 

within assumed acceptance limits. No 

operating procedures or administrative 

controls that function to prevent or mitigate 

accidents are affected by the proposed 

changes. 

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 change does not involve a 

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

or different type of equipment will be 

installed or removed) or a change in the 

method of plant operation. The proposed 

change will not introduce failure modes that 

could result in a new accident, and the 

change does not alter assumptions made in 

the safety analysis. The proposed change to 

the location of the TSC is not an initiator of 

any accidents. 

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. 

Margin of safety is associated with 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 change does not 

impact operation of the plant or its response 

to transients or accidents. The change does 

not affect the Technical Specifications or the 

operating license. The proposed change does 

not involve a change in the method of plant 

operation, and no accident analyses will be 

affected by the proposed changes. 

Additionally, the proposed change will not 

relax any criteria used to establish safety 

limits and will not relax any safety system 

settings. The safety analysis acceptance 

criteria are not affected by these changes. The 

proposed change will not result in plant 

operation in a configuration outside the 

design basis. The proposed change does not 

adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shut down the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. The 

emergency plan will continue to activate an 

emergency response commensurate with the 

extent of degradation of plant safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood 

Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, 

Columbia, South Carolina 29218. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

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. 

Duke Energy Progress, Docket No. 50– 

261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric 

Plant, Unit 2, Hartsville, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

September 10, 2013, as supplemented 

by letter dated April 8, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises Technical 

Specification 3.4.12, ‘‘Low Temperature 

Overpressure Protection System,’’ to 

add a Note that does not require the 

surveillance be performed until 12 

hours after decreasing the reactor 

coolant system cold temperature to less 

than or equal to 350 degrees Fahrenheit, 

which is the temperature when the Low 

Temperature Overpressure Protection 

operability controlled by TS 3.4.12 is 

credited. In addition, the Note and 

Frequency requirements are being 

revised to be consistent with NUREG– 

1431, Revision 3, ‘‘Standard Technical 

Specifications Westinghouse Plants,’’ 

dated June 2004. 

Date of issuance: October 15, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 238. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14260A380; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–23: Amendment revised the 

Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35803). 

The supplemental letter dated April 8, 

2014, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 77051 

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 15, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of application for amendment: 

January 28, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 16, 2013, May 

12, 2014, and August 12, 2014. 

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) 3.8.2.3, ‘‘DC 

Distribution—Operating,’’ and LCO 

3.8.2.4, ‘‘DC Distribution—Shutdown.’’ 

A new TS LCO 3.8.6, ‘‘Battery 

Parameters,’’ is created, and a new 

‘‘Battery Monitoring and Maintenance 

Program’’ is now required under TS 

Section 6.5, ‘‘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: December 4, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 297. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14302A015; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications/license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

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

The supplemental letters dated 

September 16, 2013, May 12, 2014, and 

August 12, 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 December 4, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 

50–313 and 50–368, Arkansas Nuclear 

One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, 

Arkansas 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 17, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 13, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the full 

implementation date (Milestone 8) of 

the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 

2, Cyber Security Plan. 

Date of issuance: December 8, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

immediately upon issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—251; Unit 

2—298. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14322A206, documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–51 and NPF–6: The 

amendments revised the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR 32763). 

The supplemental letter dated May 13, 

2014, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: January 

31, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated July 2, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the James A. 

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Cyber 

Security Plan (CSP) Implementation 

Schedule Milestone 8 full 

implementation date and revised the 

associated Physical Protection license 

condition. The CSP Milestone 8 full 

implementation date was changed from 

December 15, 2014, to June 30, 2016. 

Date of issuance: December 1, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 308. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14202A372; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–59: The amendment revised 

the Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

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

The supplemental letter dated July 2, 

2014, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the NRC staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 30, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 22, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the date of the Cyber 

Security Plan (CSP) Implementation 

Milestone 8 and the associated existing 

facility operating license condition 

regarding full implementation of the 

Cyber Security Plan. The CSP and 

associated implementation schedule 

was previously approved by the NRC 

staff by letter dated July 28, 2011 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML111801243). 

Date of issuance: December 8, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 253. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14237A144; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–20: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21297). 

The supplement letter dated May 22, 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

77052 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle 

County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14111A257). 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised specific Required 

Action Notes in the Braidwood and 

Byron Technical Specification (TS) 

Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 that are no 

longer applicable following installation 

and implementation of the bypass test 

instrumentation modifications at the 

four Braidwood and Byron units. The 

change reflects the specific Functions 

that have bypass test capability installed 

and the specific Functions that do not 

have bypass test capability installed. 

Date of issuance: December 7, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 180/186. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14239A427; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72, NPF–77, NPF–37, and NPF–66: The 

amendments revised the TSs and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42546). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a SE 

dated December 7, 2014. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota; and 

Northern States Power Company 

(NSPC)—Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50– 

282 and 50–306, Prairie Island Nuclear 

Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 

2, Goodhue County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: 

November 27, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 5, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the date of the 

Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 

Implementation Milestone 8 and the 

existing operating license Physical 

Protection license condition regarding 

full implementation of the CSP. The 

CSP and associated implementation 

schedule were previously approved by 

the NRC staff in letters dated July 29, 

2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML11186A992 and ML11187A231). 

Date of issuance: November 28, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: MNGP—186; 

PINGP, Unit 1—212; Unit 2—200. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14239A257; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

22, 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 5, 2014 (79 FR 45493). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

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: 

December 19, 2012, as supplemented by 

letter dated September 25, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments reduce the reactor steam 

dome pressure specified within TS 

2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core SLs [Safety 

Limits].’’ This change resolves a 

condition reported by General Electric 

(GE) in accordance with 10 CFR part 21, 

‘‘Reporting of Defects and 

Noncompliance,’’ concerning a potential 

for SSES to momentarily violate TS 

2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 during a Pressure 

Regulator Failure Maximum Demand 

(Open) Pressure Regulator Failure Open 

transient. 

Date of issuance: December 8, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 261 for Unit 1 and 

242 for Unit 2. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14321A008; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

14 and NPF–22: The amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

License and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 2, 2013, (78 FR 19754). 

The supplemental letter dated 

September 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 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 December 8, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th 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. 2014–29906 Filed 12–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

[OMB–3420–00015; OPIC–115] 

Submission for OMB Review 

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation (OPIC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), agencies are required to 

publish a Notice in the Federal Register 

notifying the public that the agency is 

modifying an existing information 

collection for OMB review and 

approval. 

DATES: Comments must be received 

within sixty (60) calendar days of 

publication of this Notice. 

ADDRESSES: Mail all comments and 

requests for copies of the subject form 

to OPIC’s Agency Submitting Officer: 

Fredrick Nutt, Managing Director, 

Department of Management and 

Administration, Overseas Private 

Investment Corporation, 1100 New York 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

other information about filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: 

Fredrick Nutt, Managing Director, (202) 

336–6206. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All mailed 

comments and requests for copies of the 

subject form should include form 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES