520 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0279] 

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 December 11 

to December 24, 2014. The last biweekly 

notice was published on December 23, 

2014. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

February 5, 2015. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by March 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2014–0279. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555–0001; 301–415–1384, 

Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0279 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information regarding 

this document. You may obtain 

publicly-available information related to 

this action by the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2014–0279. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced in this notice (if 

that document is available in ADAMS) 

is provided the first time that a 

document is referenced. 

• 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– 

0279 in the subject line of your 

comment submission, in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 521 

A. Opportunity to Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave to Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

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

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

by the above date, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/

petitioner to relief. A requestor/

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, then any hearing held 

would take place before the issuance of 

any amendment unless the Commission 

finds an imminent danger to the health 

or safety of the public, in which case it 

will issue an appropriate order or rule 

under 10 CFR part 2. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing). 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

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

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
522 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

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

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use E-Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E-Filing no 

longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

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. 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

September 2, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14261A091. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

or add technical specification (TS) 

surveillance requirements (SRs) that 

require verification that the Emergency 

Core Cooling System (ECCS), the 

Residual Heat Removal (RHR)/

Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, the 

Containment Spray (CS) System, and 

the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 

(RCIC) System are not rendered 

inoperable due to accumulated gas and 

to provide allowances which permit 

performance of the revised verification. 

The changes are being made to address 

the concerns discussed in Generic Letter 

2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation 

in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 

Removal, and Containment Spray 

Systems.’’ The proposed TS changes are 

based on NRC-approved TS Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–523, Revision 2, 

‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas 

Accumulation,’’ dated February 21, 

2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13053A075). The NRC staff issued a 

Notice of Availability for TSTF–523, 

Revision 2, for plant-specific adoption 

using the consolidated line item 

improvement process, in the Federal 

Register on January 15, 2014 (79 FR 

2700). 

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 revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the Emergency 

Core Cooling System (ECCS), the Shutdown 

Cooling (SDC), Residual Heat Removal 

(RHR), and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 

(RCIC) Systems are not rendered inoperable 

due to accumulated gas and to provide 

allowances which permit performance of the 

revised verification. Gas accumulation in the 

subject systems is not an initiator of any 

accident previously evaluated. As a result, 

the probability of any accident previously 

evaluated is not significantly increased. The 

proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems 

continue to be capable to perform their 

assumed safety function and are not rendered 

inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, 

the consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not significantly increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 523 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, the 

RHR, SDC, and the RCIC Systems are not 

rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas 

and to provide allowances which permit 

performance of the revised verification. The 

proposed change does not involve a physical 

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

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. In addition, the proposed 

change does not impose any new or different 

requirements that could initiate an accident. 

The proposed change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis and 

is consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises or adds SRs 

that require verification that the ECCS, the 

RHR, SDC, and the RCIC Systems are not 

rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas 

and to provide allowances which permit 

performance of the revised verification. The 

proposed change adds new requirements to 

manage gas accumulation in order to ensure 

the subject systems are capable of performing 

their assumed safety functions. The proposed 

SRs are more comprehensive than the current 

SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of 

the safety analysis are protected. The 

proposed change does not adversely affect 

any current plant safety margins or the 

reliability of the equipment assumed in the 

safety analysis. Therefore, there are no 

changes being made to any safety analysis 

assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety 

system settings that would adversely affect 

plant safety as a result of the proposed 

change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Council— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, 

Michigan 

Date of amendment request: June 25, 

2013, as supplemented by letters dated 

August 7, 2013, February 13, July 16, 

and December 9, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML13176A405, 

ML13220A008, ML14044A059, 

ML14199A101, and ML14343A581, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

This license amendment was originally 

noticed in the Federal Register on 

March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15148). This no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination and opportunity for 

hearing is being reissued in its entirety 

to include additional revisions to the 

PNP Site Emergency Plan (SEP). 

Specifically, the amendment would 

modify staffing of the radiation 

protection (RP) technicians, increase 

certain Emergency Response 

Organization (ERO) positions with 30- 

minute staff augmentation response 

times to 60-minute response times, and 

would add monitoring teams as 

augmented responders. 

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 changes do not affect 

previously analyzed event probabilities or 

any parameters associated with plant 

operations. The changes affect the site 

response to radiological emergencies under 

the PNP SEP. The effect of the proposed 

changes on the ability of the ERO to responds 

adequately to radiological emergencies has 

been evaluated, and the proposed changes 

would not significantly affect the ability of 

the site to perform the required SEP tasks. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes have no effect on 

the plant design or on the normal operation 

of the plant, and do not affect how systems 

and components are operated under 

emergency conditions. The proposed changes 

affect the site response to radiological 

emergencies under the PNP SEP. The 

changes do not significantly affect the ability 

of the site to respond to radiological 

emergencies and perform required ERO 

functions, and do not affect the plant 

operating procedures which are performed by 

plant staff during plant conditions. 

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 does not affect plant 

design, method of plant operation, or any 

protective boundaries. 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 

10 CFR 50 Appendix E establish emergency 

planning standards and requirements for 

adequate staffing, satisfactory performance of 

key functional areas and critical tasks, and 

timely augmentation of the response 

capability. Since the PNP SEP was originally 

developed, there have been improvements in 

the technology used to support the SEP 

functions and the capabilities of onsite 

personnel. The proposed changes do not 

significantly affect the ability of the ERO to 

perform required SEP tasks. Thus, the 

proposed change does not adversely affect 

the ability to meet the emergency planning 

standards as described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) 

and the requirements in 10 CFR 50 Appendix 

E. 

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: Mr. William 

Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 

Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: 

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

Accession No. ML14316A370. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would approve the 

licensee’s equivalent margin analysis, 

performed in accordance with Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) 50, Appendix G, which 

demonstrates that materials predicted to 

possess Charpy upper shelf energy 

values less than 50 ft-lbs will provide 

margins of safety against fracture, 

equivalent to those required by 

Appendix G of Section XI of the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Code. 

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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
524 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This amendment request is for approval of 

an equivalent margins analysis (EMA) in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, 

Section IV, ‘‘Fracture Toughness 

Requirements.’’ The EMA is to demonstrate 

that reactor vessel beltline material predicted 

to possess Charpy Upper Shelf Energy (USE) 

values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins 

of safety against fracture equivalent to those 

required by Appendix G of Section XI of the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. 

The EMA does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident, and does not result in 

physical alteration of a plant structure, 

system or component (SSC) or installation of 

new or different types of equipment. The 

EMA does not affect plant operation or any 

design function. The EMA verifies the 

capability of a [SSC] to perform a design 

function. Further, the EMA does not 

significantly affect the probability of 

accidents previously evaluated in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR), or cause a change to any of the 

does analyses associated with the UFSAR 

accidents because accident mitigation 

functions would remain unchanged. 

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 type of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The amendment request is for approval of 

an EMA in accordance with 10 CFR 50 

Appendix G, Section IV. The EMA is to 

demonstrate that reactor vessel beltline 

material predicted to possess Charpy USE 

values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins 

of safety against fracture equivalent to those 

required by Appendix G of Section XI of the 

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The 

EMA does not change the design function, 

operation, or integrity of the reactor vessel, 

and does not challenge the performance or 

integrity of any safety-related systems. No 

physical plant alterations are made as a result 

of the proposed change. The EMA will not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident due to credible new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators not considered in the design and 

licensing basis. 

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 amendment request is for approval of 

an EMA in accordance with 10 CFR 50 

Appendix G, Section IV. The EMA is to 

demonstrate that reactor vessel beltline 

material predicted to possess Charpy USE 

values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins 

of safety against fracture equivalent to those 

required by Appendix G of Section XI of the 

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. As 

such, there is no significant reduction in the 

margin of safety as a result of the EMA. No 

design bases or safety limits are exceeded or 

altered due to the EMA. The margin of safety 

associated with the acceptance criteria of 

accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR 

is unchanged. The proposed change has no 

effect on the availability, operability, or 

performance of the safety-related systems and 

components. 

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: Mr. William 

Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 

Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: 

November 21, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14330A246. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Technical Specifications for reactor 

coolant system (RCS) heatup, cooldown, 

and inservice leak hydrostatic test 

pressure/temperature (P/T) limitations, 

as well as the setpoints for the low 

temperature overpressure protection 

(LTOP) system, to reflect unit operation 

to a maximum of 54 effective full power 

years (EFPYs). The current limits are 

applicable up to 31 EFPYs. 

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 will revise the 

heatup, cooldown, and inservice leak 

hydrostatic test limitations for the Reactor 

Coolant System (RCS) to a maximum of 54 

Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G. 

This is the end of the period of extended 

operation. Further, the proposed amendment 

revises the enable temperature and the lift 

setpoint for Low Temperature 

Overpressurization Protection (LTOP) 

requirements to reflect the revised P/T limits 

of the reactor vessel. The P/T limits were 

developed in accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, 

utilizing the analytical methods and flaw 

acceptance criteria of Topical Report BAW– 

10046A, Revision 2, and American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) [Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel] Code, Section XI, Appendix 

G. These methods and criteria are the 

previously NRC approved standards for the 

preparation of P/T limits. Updating the P/T 

limits for additional EFPYs maintains the 

level of assurance that reactor coolant 

pressure boundary integrity will be 

maintained, as specified in 10 CFR 50, 

Appendix G. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors, and 

do not alter the design assumptions, 

conditions, or configuration of the plant or 

the manner in which the plant is operated 

and maintained. The ability of structures, 

systems, and components to perform their 

intended safety functions is not altered or 

prevented by the proposed changes, and the 

assumptions used in determining the 

radiological consequences of previously 

evaluated accidents are not affected. 

Therefore, this change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes incorporate 

methodologies that either have been 

approved or accepted for use by the NRC 

(provided that any conditions/limitations are 

satisfied). The P/T limits and LTOP limits 

will provide the same level of protection to 

the reactor coolant pressure boundary as was 

previously evaluated. Reactor coolant 

pressure boundary integrity will continue to 

be maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 50, 

Appendix G, and the assumed accident 

performance of plant structures, systems and 

components will not be affected. These 

changes do not involve any physical 

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

different type of equipment will be installed), 

and installed equipment is not being 

operated in a new or different manner. Thus, 

no new failure modes are introduced. 

Therefore, this change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from an accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

function of the reactor coolant pressure 

boundary or its response during plant 

transients. By calculating the P/T limits and 

associated LTOP limits using NRC-approved 

methodology, adequate margins of safety 

relating to reactor coolant pressure boundary 

integrity are maintained. The proposed 

changes do not alter the manner in which 

safety limits, limiting safety system settings, 

or limiting conditions for operation are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 525 

determined. These changes will ensure that 

protective actions are initiated and the 

operability requirements for equipment 

assumed to operate for accident mitigation 

are not affected. 

Therefore, this change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. 

Oesterle. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket 

No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 

1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: 

September 24, 2014, as supplemented 

by letter dated December 11, 2014. 

Publicly-available versions are in 

ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML14273A012 and ML14349A645, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

change the Facility Operating License 

and Technical Specifications (TSs). The 

proposed changes will revise License 

Condition 2.K and delete the functional 

unit ‘‘Cold Leg Injection, P–15’’ from TS 

3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Features 

Actuation System Instrumentation.’’ 

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, along with NRC edits in 

square brackets, 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 deletes from the TS 

functional unit 10.d ‘‘Cold Leg Injection, P– 

15,’’ which would prevent opening of the 

high-head safety injection valves until reactor 

coolant system pressure decreases below the 

P–15 setpoint. This feature has not been 

installed in the plant, and the TS 

requirements for permissive P–15 have not 

been implemented. Eliminating a feature that 

has not been implemented in the plant is not 

an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The proposed change 

has no impact on equipment required to be 

operable for accident mitigation; 

consequently, the change does not 

significantly increase the consequences of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (no new or 

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. No new accident scenarios, 

failure mechanisms, or limiting single 

failures are introduced as a result of the 

proposed change because no physical 

changes are made to the plant. Therefore, the 

proposed change to the TS does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated[.] 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The ability of any operable SSC [structure, 

system or component] to perform its 

designated safety function is unaffected by 

the proposed change. The proposed change 

does not alter any safety analyses 

assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings, or method of operating the 

plant. The change does not adversely impact 

plant operating margins or the reliability of 

equipment credited in the safety analyses. 

The Seabrook analysis for inadvertent 

operation of the emergency core cooling 

system credits operator to terminate safety 

injection flow. The addition of permissive P– 

15 to the plant design and TS was initiated 

to increase the time available for the 

operators to terminate an inadvertent safety 

injection actuation. However, the amendment 

is still within the implementation period and 

the TS change and associated design change 

have not been implemented. Currently, 

without the P–15 function, the operators are 

capable of terminating safety injection flow 

within the assumed time limits, and 

performance meets Seabrook’s administrative 

limit for completing time critical actions 

within 80% of the required time. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William Blair, 

Managing Attorney, Florida Power & 

Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– 

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: October 

30, 2013. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14303A448. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would amend 

Combined License Nos. NPF–93 and 

NPF–94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by 

departing from the plant-specific Design 

Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 (and 

corresponding Combined License 

Appendix C information) and Tier 2 

material by making changes to specify 

the use of latching control relays in lieu 

of breakers to open the control rod drive 

mechanism (CRDM) motor generator 

(MG) set generator field on a diverse 

actuation system (DAS) signal. 

Because, this proposed change 

requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the 

licensee also requested an exemption 

from the requirements of the Generic 

DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 

52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to use field control 

relays in lieu of field circuit breakers to deenergize the CRDM MG Set excitation field 

does not result in a change to the basic MG 

Set design function, which is to supply 

reliable electrical power to the CRDMs while 

providing a trip function on a DAS signal, 

allowing the control rods to drop. The 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is not 

adversely affected. No safety-related 

structure, system, or component (SSC) or 

function is adversely affected. The change 

does not involve nor interface with any SSC 

accident initiator or initiating sequence of 

events, and thus, the probabilities of the 

accidents evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report] are not 

affected. Because the change maintains the 

CRDM MG set trip function used to mitigate 

an accident, the consequences of the 

accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 

affected. 

Therefore, there is no 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. 

There is no safety-related SSC or function 

adversely affected by this proposed change to 

use control relays instead of breakers to deenergize the CRDM MG set generator field on 

demand. This proposed change does not 

change any equipment qualification or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 

fission product barrier. The change does not 

result in a new failure mode, malfunction or 

sequence of events that could affect safety or 

safety-related equipment. This activity will 

not allow for a new fission product release 

path, result in a new fission product barrier 

failure mode, or create a new sequence of 

events that would result in significant fuel 

cladding failures. 

Therefore, this activity 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. 

There is no safety-related SSC or function 

adversely affected by this proposed change to 

use relays instead of breakers to control the 

CRDM MG set generator field. The function 

to trip the MG set generator field on a DAS 

signal, allowing the control rods to drop, is 

not adversely affected by the use of relays as 

the device to de-energize the generator field. 

The proposed change does not affect any 

safety-related design code, function, design 

analysis, safety analysis input or result, or 

design/safety margin. No safety analysis or 

design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 

challenged or exceeded by the requested 

change, thus, no margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. 

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004–2514. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– 

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

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

Accession No. ML14261A360. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed license amendment 

would depart from VCSNS Units 2 and 

3 plant-specific Design Control 

Document (DCD) Tier 2* material 

contained within the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) by 

relocating fire area rated fire barriers 

due to changes to the layout of the 

switchgear rooms and office area in the 

turbine building. 

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 reconfiguration of the 

turbine building switchgear rooms, the 

control system cabinet room, the new 

electrical equipment room, and the 

associated heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVAC) room would not 

adversely affect any safety-related equipment 

or function. The modified configuration will 

maintain the fire protection function (i.e., 

barrier) as evaluated in Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (UFSAR) Appendix 9A, 

thus, the probability of a spread of a fire from 

these areas is not significantly increased. The 

safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, 

and the fire protection analysis results are 

not adversely affected. The proposed changes 

affect nonsafety-related electrical switchgear 

and do not involve any accident, initiating 

event, or component failure; thus, the 

probabilities of the accidents previously 

evaluated are not affected. The proposed 

changes do not interface with or affect any 

system containing radioactivity or affect any 

radiological material release source terms; 

thus, the radiological releases in the accident 

analyses are not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the fire zones in 

the turbine building related to the turbine 

building switchgear rooms, the control 

system cabinet room, the new electrical 

equipment room, the associated HVAC room, 

and stairway will maintain the fire barrier 

fire protection function as evaluated in the 

UFSAR Appendix 9A. The changes to the fire 

areas and fire zones do not affect the function 

of any safety-related structure, system, or 

component, and thus, do not introduce a new 

failure mode. The affected turbine building 

areas and equipment do not interface with 

any safety-related equipment or any 

equipment associated with radioactive 

material and, thus, do not create a new fault 

or sequence of events that could result in 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 reconfiguration of the fire 

zones associated with the turbine building 

switchgear rooms, the electrical equipment 

room, and the associated HVAC room will 

maintain the fire barrier fire protection 

function as evaluated in the UFSAR 

Appendix 9A. The fire barriers and 

equipment in the turbine building do not 

interface with any safety-related equipment 

or affect any safety-related function. The 

changes to the area barriers associated with 

the turbine building switchgear and 

associated HVAC continue to comply with 

the existing design codes and regulatory 

criteria, and do not affect any safety analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. 

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004–2514. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

Southern 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, respectively. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 527 

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. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 

and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

November 21, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14325A835. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed changes would revise the 

Combined Licenses (COLs) changing the 

description and scope of the Initial Test 

Program. Because this proposed change 

requires a departure from Tier 1 

information in the Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control 

Document (DCD), the licensee also 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 

in accordance with Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

52.63(b)(1). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment is related to the 

conduct of the Initial Test Program. The 

proposed changes are made in compliance 

with the applicable regulatory guides, are 

only related to the general aspects of how the 

program is executed and do not change any 

technical content for preoperational or 

startup tests. No changes are made to any 

design aspect of the plant. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment is related to the 

conduct of the Initial Test Program. The 

proposed changes are made in compliance 

with the applicable regulatory guides, are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 

only related to the general aspects of how the 

program is executed and do not change any 

technical content for preoperational or 

startup tests. These changes do not affect the 

design or analyzed operation of any system. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment is related to the 

conduct of the Initial Test Program. The 

proposed changes are made in compliance 

with the applicable regulatory guides, are 

only related to the general aspects of how the 

program is executed and do not change any 

technical content for preoperational or 

startup tests. No safety analysis or design 

basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged 

or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus 

no margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. 

Burkhart. 

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 Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of application for amendments: 

January 28, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.12. Specifically, 

the change removes a reference to 

Condition E when entering Condition G. 

Date of issuance: December 11, 2014. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—275 and 

Unit 2—255. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14332A790; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the licenses and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18330). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: May 28, 

2013, as supplemented by letter dated 

May 8, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core 

SLs [Safety Limits],’’ to reduce the 

reactor dome pressure from 785 pounds 

per square inch gauge (psig) to 685 psig. 

These changes resolve a calculational 

defect reported under 10 CFR part 21 

concerning a potential to momentarily 

violate the reactor safety limits in TSs 

2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 during a Pressure 

Regulator Failure-Open transient as 

reported by General Electric Nuclear 

Energy. 

Date of issuance: December 11, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 60 

days from the date of issuance. 

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

Accession No. ML14192A831; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

47: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47788). 

The supplemental letter dated May 8, 

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 11, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

November 4, 2013. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) Sections 3.6.4.3, 

‘‘Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,’’ 

3.6.4.7, ‘‘Fuel Building Ventilation 

System—Fuel Handling,’’ 3.7.2, 

‘‘Control Room Fresh Air (CRFA) 

System,’’ and 5.5.7, ‘‘Ventilation Filter 

Testing Program (VFTP).’’ Specifically, 

the amendment eliminates the 

operability and Surveillance 

Requirements for the heaters in the 

safety-related charcoal filter trains in 

those systems, and revises certain 

charcoal test specifications. 

Date of issuance: December 12, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 60 

days from the date of issuance. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 529 

Accession No. ML14225A444; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

47: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12243). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

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

West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: February 

25, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approved a change to the 

facility operating license for RBS. The 

change revised the date for 

implementation of Milestone 8 of the 

Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 

Implementation Schedule and the 

existing license conditions in the 

facility operating license. Milestone 8 of 

the CSP implementation schedule 

concerns the full implementation of the 

CSP. 

Date of issuance: December 12, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 60 

days from the date of issuance. 

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

Accession No. ML14304A181; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

47: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38576). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket Nos. 50–003, 50–247 and 50– 

286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Westchester 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: January 

30, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated June 12, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment): The 

amendments revised the Cyber Security 

Plan Milestone 8 full implementation 

date and the existing Physical 

Protection license conditions by 

extending the full implementation date 

to June 30, 2016. 

Date of issuance: December 11, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 57, 279, and 254. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14316A526; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

5, DPR–26, and DPR–64: The 

amendment revised the Provisional 

Operating License for Unit No. 1 and the 

Facility Operating Licenses for Unit 

Nos. 2 and 3. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25899). 

The supplemental letter dated June 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 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 11, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear 

Power Station (Pilgrim), Plymouth 

County, Massachusetts 

Date of amendment request: January 

31, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated July 1, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Pilgrim 

operating license by modifying the 

Physical Protection license condition, 

related to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP). 

The CSP Milestone 8 full 

implementation date was changed from 

December 15, 2014, to June 30, 2016. 

Date of issuance: December 11, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 241. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14336A661; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–35: The amendment revised 

the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

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

The supplemental letter dated July 1, 

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 11, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: October 

31, 2013, as supplemented by letters 

dated April 24, 2014, July 16, 2014, and 

December 5, 2014. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment revised and removed 

certain requirements from the Section 

6.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ portions 

of the Vermont Yankee Technical 

Specifications that are no longer 

applicable to the facility in a 

permanently defueled condition. 

Date of Issuance: December 22, 2014. 

Effective date: The license 

amendment becomes effective upon the 

licensee’s submittal of the certifications 

required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and 

(ii). 

Amendment No.: 260. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14217A072; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR 

9494). The supplemental letters dated 

April 24, July 16, and December 5, 2014, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: August 4, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approved a change to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
530 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 

facility operating license for Waterford 

Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. The 

change revised the date for 

implementation of Milestone 8 of the 

Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 

Implementation Schedule and the 

existing license conditions in the 

facility operating license. Milestone 8 of 

the CSP implementation schedule 

concerns the full implementation of the 

CSP. 

Date of issuance: December 10, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 60 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 241. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14321A713; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

38: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR 

60518). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 10, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

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

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 

Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 19, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 11, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approved a change to the 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 

facility operating license to revise the 

date for implementation of Milestone 8 

of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 

Implementation Schedule and the 

existing license conditions in the 

facility operating license. Milestone 8 of 

the CSP implementation schedule 

concerns the full implementation of the 

CSP. 

Date of issuance: December 12, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No: 200. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14311A479; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

29: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38576). 

The supplemental letter dated June 11, 

2014, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352, 50–353, and 72–65, 

Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 

2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–219 and 72–15, Oyster 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 

Ocean County, New Jersey 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–171, 

50–277, 50–278, and 72–29, Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 

2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–289 and 50–320, Three 

Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 

2, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 30, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 13, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Emergency 

Plan definition of Annual Training from 

‘‘Retraining is performed on an annual 

basis, which is defined as every 12- 

months + 3 months (25% grace 

period),’’ to ‘‘Retraining is performed 

once per year not to exceed 18-months 

between training sessions.’’ 

Date of issuance: December 24, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 212, 173, 283, 12, 

294, 297, and 283. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14226A940; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–39, NPF–85, DPR–16, DPR–12, 

DPR–44, DPR–56, DPR–50, and DPR–73: 

The amendments revised the Emergency 

Plan. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18333). 

The supplemental letter dated June 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 24, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

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

C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: January 

10, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated May 27, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the schedule for 

full implementation of the cyber 

security plan (CSP) and Paragraph 2.D 

of Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74 for CNP, 

Units 1 and 2, respectively. The CSP 

and associated implementation 

schedule for CNP, Units 1 and 2 was 

previously approved by NRC staff letter 

dated July 28, 2011, as supplemented by 

changes approved in a letter dated 

December 13, 2012 

Date of issuance: December 18, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 325 and 308. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14317A551; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38579). 

The supplemental letter dated May 27, 

2014, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 531 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station 

(CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: March 

14, 2014, as supplemented by letter 

dated July 28, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the CNS Cyber 

Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full 

implementation date as set forth in the 

CSP Implementation Schedule. The 

amendment also revised the physical 

protection license condition in the 

renewed facility operating license. 

Date of issuance: December 12, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 249. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14323A644; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–46: Amendment revised the 

renewed facility operating license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38580). 

The supplemental letter dated July 28, 

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 12, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: March 

31, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification 2.5, ‘‘Steam and 

Feedwater Systems,’’ to allow a 7-day 

completion time for restoration of the 

turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater 

pump if it becomes inoperable following 

a refueling outage and if Mode 2 has not 

yet been entered, based on Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–340, Revision 3. 

Date of issuance: December 22, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

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

Accession No. ML14328A814; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the license and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

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

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated December 22, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: 

September 5, 2013. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment relocates the operability 

and surveillance requirements for flood 

protection from the Technical 

Specifications to the Technical 

Requirements Manual. 

Date of issuance: December 18, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 196. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14108A399; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–57: Amendment revised the 

Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21299). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–354, 

50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek 

Generating Station and Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Salem County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: 

December 24, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated June 23, 2014, and August 

18, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the Hope Creek 

Generating Station and Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 

full implementation date, as set forth in 

the CSP implementation schedule and 

the existing License Condition 2.E in the 

Renewed Facility Operating Licenses 

NPF–57, DPR–70, and DPR–75. 

Date of issuance: December 23, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 197, 306, and 288. 

A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14323A974; documents related to 

this amendment are listed in the Safety 

Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–57, DPR–70, and DPR–75: 

Amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 9, 2014 (79 FR 

53461). The supplemental letters dated 

June 23, 2014, and August 18, 2014, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– 

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

December 4, 2013 and September 8, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised various technical 

specifications (TS) to upgrade the 

VCSNS TS to improve operator usability 

by more closely aligning the TS with the 

latest form and content of standard TS. 

Date of issuance: November 12, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 20. A publicly 

available version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14265A072; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18334). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
532 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

January 16, 2014, as supplemented by 

letters dated May 2 and July 22, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification 3.7.5, Control Room Air 

Conditioning System, to provide new 

Required Actions (RAs) for one, two, or 

three main control room AC subsystems 

inoperable, and make other required 

corresponding changes. 

Date of issuance: December 10, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—270 and 

Unit 2—214. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14279A261; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5: Amendments 

revised the licenses and the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR 

49110). The supplemental letter dated 

May 2 and July 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. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 10, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

December 21, 2012, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 21, 2013. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Operating Licenses to incorporate a 

degraded voltage protection 

modification schedule into the Hatch 

licenses. 

Date of issuance: December 16, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—271 and 

Unit 2—215. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14328A323; documents related 

to this these amendments are listed in 

the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5: Amendments 

revised the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 

54289). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day 

of December 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

George A. Wilson, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30966 Filed 1–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0262] 

Applications and Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses Involving 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Considerations and Containing 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Order Imposing 

Procedures for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: License amendment request; 

opportunity to comment, request a 

hearing, and petition for leave to 

intervene; order. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) received and is 

considering approval of four 

amendment requests. The amendment 

requests are for Turkey Point Nuclear 

Generating, Units 3 and 4; Duane 

Arnold Energy Center; Point Beach 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Edwin 

I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2. The NRC 

proposes to determine that each 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. In 

addition, each amendment request 

contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI). 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

February 5, 2015. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by March 9, 2015. 

Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), who believes 

access to SUNSI is necessary to respond 

to this notice must request document 

access by January 16, 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–2014–0262. 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: 

Beverly A. Clayton, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0262 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–2014–0262. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES