Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 2747 

must contact the Board Office (call 703– 

292–7000 or send an email message to 

nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov) at least 24 

hours prior to the teleconference for the 

public listening number. Please refer to 

the National Science Board Web site 

www.nsf.gov/nsb for additional 

information and schedule updates (time, 

place, subject matter or status of 

meeting) which may be found at http:// 

www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point of 

contact for this meeting is Jacqueline 

Meszaros at jmeszaro@nsf.gov. 

Ann Bushmiller, 

Senior Counsel to the National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00896 Filed 1–15–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0006] 

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 

25, 2014 to January 7, 2015. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

January 6, 2015. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

February 19, 2015. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by March 23, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0006. 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: Kay 

Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington DC 20555– 

0001; 301–415–1506, Kay.Goldstein@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– 

0006 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–2015–0006. 

• 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–2015– 

0006 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

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

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

by the above date, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/

petitioner to relief. A requestor/

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, then any hearing held 

would take place before the issuance of 

any amendment unless the Commission 

finds an imminent danger to the health 

or safety of the public, in which case it 

will issue an appropriate order or rule 

under 10 CFR part 2. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 2749 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

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

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

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

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use E-Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E-Filing no 

longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

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. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, 

York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

November 7, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14315A084. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specifications (TSs) 

associated with the primary 

containment leakage rate testing 

program. Specifically, the amendment 

would extend the frequencies for 

performance of the Type A containment 

integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) and 

the Type C containment isolation valve 

leakage rate test, required by 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix J, ‘‘Primary Reactor 

Containment Leakage Testing for WaterCooled Power Reactors.’’ 

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, with NRC staff revisions 

provided in [brackets]: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to the TS 

involves the extension of the PBAPS, Units 

2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 

15 years and the extension of the Type C test 

interval to 75 months. The current Type A 

test interval of 120 months (10 years) would 

be extended on a permanent basis to no 

longer than 15 years from the last Type A 

test. The current Type C test interval of 60 

months for selected components would be 

extended on a performance basis to no longer 

than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine 

months (total maximum interval of 84 

months for Type C tests) are permissible only 

for non-routine emergent conditions. The 

proposed extension does not involve either a 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 

physical change to the plant or a change in 

the manner in which the plant is operated or 

controlled. The containment is designed to 

provide an essentially leak tight barrier 

against the uncontrolled release of 

radioactivity to the environment for 

postulated accidents. As such, the 

containment and the testing requirements 

invoked to periodically demonstrate the 

integrity of the containment exist to ensure 

the plant’s ability to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident, and do not 

involve the prevention or identification of 

any precursors of an accident. The change in 

dose risk for changing the Type A test 

frequency from three-per-ten years to onceper-fifteen-years, measured as an increase to 

the total integrated dose risk for all internal 

events accident sequences for PBAPS, is 

5.99E–02 person-rem/yr (0.52%) using the 

EPRI [Electric Power Research Institute] 

guidance with the base case corrosion 

included. The change in dose risk drops to 

1.60E–02 person-rem/yr (0.14%) when using 

the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. 

Therefore, this proposed extension does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

As documented in NUREG–1493, Type B 

and C tests have identified a very large 

percentage of containment leakage paths, and 

the percentage of containment leakage paths 

that are detected only by Type A testing is 

very small. The PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type 

A test history supports this conclusion. 

The integrity of the containment is subject 

to two types of failure mechanisms that can 

be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and; (2) 

time based. Activity based failure 

mechanisms are defined as degradation due 

to system and/or component modifications or 

maintenance. Local leak rate test 

requirements and administrative controls 

such as configuration management and 

procedural requirements for system 

restoration ensure that containment integrity 

is not degraded by plant modifications or 

maintenance activities. The design and 

construction requirements of the 

containment combined with the containment 

inspections performed in accordance with 

ASME [American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers] Section XI, the Maintenance Rule, 

and TS requirements serve to provide a high 

degree of assurance that the containment 

would not degrade in a manner that is 

detectable only by a Type A test. Based on 

the above, the proposed extensions do not 

significantly increase the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed amendment also deletes 

exceptions previously granted to allow onetime extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 

both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were 

for activities that would have already taken 

place by the time this amendment is 

approved; therefore, their deletion is solely 

an administrative action that has no effect on 

any component and no impact on how the 

units are operated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

result in a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to the TS 

involves the extension of the PBAPS, Unit 2 

and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 

years and the extension of the Type C test 

interval to 75 months. The containment and 

the testing requirements to periodically 

demonstrate the integrity of the containment 

exist to ensure the plant’s ability to mitigate 

the consequences of an accident do not 

involve any accident precursors or initiators. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

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

different type of equipment will be installed) 

or a change to the manner in which the plant 

is operated or controlled. 

The proposed amendment also deletes 

exceptions previously granted to allow onetime extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 

both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were 

for activities that would have already taken 

place by the time this amendment is 

approved; therefore, their deletion is solely 

an administrative action that does not result 

in any change in how the units are operated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 

involves the extension of the PBAPS, Units 

2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 

15 years and the extension of the Type C test 

interval to 75 months for selected 

components. This amendment does not alter 

the manner in which safety limits, limiting 

safety system set points, or limiting 

conditions for operation are determined. The 

specific requirements and conditions of the 

TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program 

exist to ensure that the degree of containment 

structural integrity and leak-tightness that is 

considered in the plant safety analysis is 

maintained. The overall containment leak 

rate limit specified by TS is maintained. 

The proposed change involves only the 

extension of the interval between Type A 

containment leak rate tests and Type C tests 

for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed 

surveillance interval extension is bounded by 

the 15-year ILRT [i]nterval and the 75-month 

Type C test interval currently authorized 

within NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 94–01, 

Revision 3–A. Industry experience supports 

the conclusion that Type B and C testing 

detects a large percentage of containment 

leakage paths and that the percentage of 

containment leakage paths that are detected 

only by Type A testing is small. The 

containment inspections performed in 

accordance with ASME Section XI, TS and 

the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high 

degree of assurance that the containment 

would not degrade in a manner that is 

detectable only by Type A testing. The 

combination of these factors ensures that the 

margin of safety in the plant safety analysis 

is maintained. The design, operation, testing 

methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, 

B, and C containment leakage tests specified 

in applicable codes and standards would 

continue to be met, with the acceptance of 

this proposed change, since these are not 

affected by changes to the Type A and Type 

C test intervals. 

The proposed amendment also deletes 

exceptions previously granted to allow one 

time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 

both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were 

for activities that would have already taken 

place by the time this amendment is 

approved; therefore, their deletion is solely 

an administrative action and does not change 

how the units are operated and maintained. 

Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of 

safety. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for Licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and 

Deputy General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon 

Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: August 

26, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14241A496). 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specification Section 6.8.4.h, 

‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing 

Program,’’ extending the interval for 

integrated leak rate test (ILRT) from the 

current 10 years to 15 years. 

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. The NRC staff performed 

its own analysis, 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 licensee proposed to change only the 

frequency of performing the ILRT, extending 

it from the current 10 years to 15 years. No 

previously evaluated accidents were 

postulated to be caused by the frequency of 

ILRT; consequently, changing the frequency 

of ILRT alone does not increase the 

probability of occurrence of any previously 

evaluated accident. 

The proposed amendment does not involve 

any change in the design bases, performance, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 2751 

or use of the containment system. Thus, the 

containment system will continue to perform 

its design functions during normal operation 

and during the course of an accident (i.e., the 

containment system will mitigate 

radiological consequences of accident as it 

was originally designed). 

Therefore, there will be no significant 

increase of 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 accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not involve 

any change in the design bases, performance 

or use of the containment system. Thus, no 

new or different kind of accident could be 

created by the proposed amendment. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve any 

new acceptance criteria or performance 

parameters. The containment system, under 

the proposed ILRT frequency, will continue 

to perform its original design functions under 

the original design and licensing bases. Thus, 

the proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction of margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on its 

own analysis, determines that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the proposed 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe 

Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 

33408–0420. 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. 

Regner. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: 

November 7, 2014. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML14314A087. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

change Technical Specification (TS) 

section 3.1, Table 3–3 for Fort Calhoun 

Station, Unit No. 1, to correct an 

administrative error in the surveillance 

method for the containment wide range 

radiation monitors. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change to Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.1 Table 3–3 corrects an 

administrative error to the stated surveillance 

method introduced by TS Amendment 152 

[dated March 25, 1993; ADAMS Accession 

No. ML15005A051)], and will make the 

surveillance method for the containment 

high range radiation monitors consistent with 

Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) 

Section 11.2 for the range of the monitors and 

consistent with the guidance for special 

calibration of these monitors contained in 

NUREG–0737 [‘‘Clarification of TMI Action 

Plan Requirements,’’ November 1980; 

ADAMS Accession No. ML102560051] Table 

II.F.1–3. The proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated because: (1) The 

proposed amendment does not represent a 

change to the system design, (2) the proposed 

amendment does not alter, degrade, or 

prevent action described or assumed in any 

accident in the USAR from being performed, 

(3) the proposed amendment does not alter 

any assumptions previously made in 

evaluating radiological consequences, and 

[4]) the proposed amendment does not affect 

the integrity of any fission product barrier. 

No other safety related equipment is affected 

by the proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the 

surveillance method to be consistent with the 

guidance in NUREG–0737 Table II.F.1–3. The 

proposed change does not alter the physical 

design, safety limits, or safety analysis 

assumptions associated with the operation of 

the plant. Hence, the proposed change does 

not introduce any new accident initiators, 

nor does it reduce or adversely affect the 

capabilities of any plant structure or system 

in the performance of their safety function. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits or limiting 

safety system settings are determined. The 

safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 

affected by this proposed change. Further, 

the proposed change does not change the 

design function of any equipment assumed to 

operate in the event of an accident. The 

change only corrects the surveillance method 

of the high range post-accident radiation 

monitors to be consistent with the design of 

the monitors and NUREG–0737. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, 

Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. 

Oesterle. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: 

November 25, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14329B244. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

technical specification (TS) surveillance 

requirement (SR) 4.7.2.1.1, to reduce the 

required run time of the control room 

emergency filtration subsystems, with 

heaters on, from a minimum of 10 hours 

to a minimum of 15 minutes, consistent 

with Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF–522, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Ventilation System 

Surveillance Requirements to Operate 

for 10 hours per Month,’’ with minor 

variations. The Notice of Availability 

and model safety evaluation of TSTF– 

522, Revision 0, were published in the 

Federal Register on September 20, 2012 

(77 FR 58421). 

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 replaces an existing 

SR to operate each Control Room Emergency 

Filtration (CREF) subsystem equipped with 

electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a 

frequency controlled in accordance with the 

SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program] with a requirement to operate each 

subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with 

heaters on. 

This system is not an accident initiator and 

therefore, these changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident. The proposed system and filter 

testing change is consistent with current 

regulatory guidance for these systems and 

will continue to assure that these systems 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2752 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 

perform their design function which may 

include mitigating accidents. Thus the 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the consequences of an accident. 

Therefore, it is concluded that 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 change replaces an existing 

SR to operate each CREF subsystem with 

electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a 

frequency controlled in accordance with the 

SFCP with a requirement to operate each 

subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with 

heaters on. 

The change proposed for this ventilation 

system does not change any system 

operations or maintenance activities. Testing 

requirements will be revised and will 

continue to demonstrate that the Limiting 

Condition for Operation is met and the 

system components are capable of 

performing their intended safety functions. 

The change does not create new failure 

modes or mechanisms and no new accident 

precursors are generated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces an existing 

SR to operate each CREF subsystem with 

electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a 

frequency controlled in accordance with the 

SFCP with a requirement to operate each 

subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with 

heaters on. 

The design basis for the CREF systems’ 

heaters is to heat the incoming air which 

reduces the relative humidity. The heater 

testing change proposed will continue to 

demonstrate that the heaters are capable of 

heating the air and will perform their design 

function. The proposed change is consistent 

with regulatory guidance. 

Therefore, it is concluded that the 

proposed changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

Based upon the above, PSEG concludes 

that the proposed change presents no 

significant hazards consideration under the 

standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 

accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant 

hazards consideration’’ is justified. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, 

PSEG Nuclear LLC–N21, P.O. Box 236, 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 

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 20, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14324A969. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would amend 

Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and 

NPF–92 for the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. 

The requested amendment proposes 

changes to revise the VEGP Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to 

clarify a human factors engineering 

operational sequence analysis related to 

the AP1000 Automatic Depressurization 

System and delete the Westinghouse 

Electric Company’s document WCAP– 

15847, ‘‘AP1000 Quality Assurance 

Procedures Supporting NRC Review of 

AP1000 DCD [Design Control 

Document] Sections 18.2 and 18.8,’’ that 

is incorporated by reference into the 

UFSAR. Both of the requested changes 

constitute changes to information 

identified as Tier 2* information as 

defined in Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, Part 52, Appendix 

D, Section II.F. 

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 deletion of WCAP–15847 

removes obsolete and superseded procedures 

from the licensing basis. The amendment of 

the operational sequence analysis (OSA) task 

alters the automatic depressurization system 

(ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The 

proposed changes to the procedures do not 

involve any accident initiating component/

system failure or event, and the change to the 

ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents 

would occur if the tests were performed in 

Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the 

accidents previously evaluated are not 

affected. The affected procedures and 

requirements do not adversely affect or 

interact with safety-related equipment or a 

radioactive material barrier, and this activity 

does not involve the containment of 

radioactive material. Thus, the proposed 

changes would not affect any safety-related 

accident mitigating function. The radioactive 

material source terms and release paths used 

in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus 

the radiological releases in the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report 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. 

Removing WCAP–15847 from the UFSAR 

and amending the OSA task regarding ADS 

valve testing does not adversely affect the 

design or operation of safety-related 

equipment or equipment whose failure could 

initiate an accident other than what is 

already described in the licensing basis. 

These changes do not adversely affect safetyrelated equipment or fission product barriers. 

No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 

limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 

the requested change. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to remove WCAP– 

15847 from the UFSAR and amend the OSA 

task do not adversely affect any safety-related 

equipment, design code compliance, design 

function, design analysis, safety analysis 

input or result, or design/safety margin 

because NQA–1 requirements are maintained 

in other Westinghouse procedures and 

testing of the ADS valves is still performed. 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 2753 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick 

County, North Carolina; Duke Energy 

Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50–261, H. B. 

Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 

2, Darlington County, South Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 

50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham 

Counties, North Carolina; Duke Energy 

Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50–302, 

Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Citrus County, Florida 

Date of amendment requests: 

December 19, 2013. A redacted version 

was provided by letter dated March 31, 

2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Cyber Security 

Plan Implementation Milestone 8 

completion dates and the physical 

protection license conditions. 

Date of issuance: December 19, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of their 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of the date of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Brunswick, Unit 1: 

266, Brunswick, Unit 2: 294, H. B. 

Robinson, Unit No. 2: 239, Shearon 

Harris, Unit 1: 144, and Crystal River, 

Unit 3: 245. A publicly-available version 

is in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14318A929; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–71, DPR–62, DPR–23, and 

NPF–63, and Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–72. The amendments revised 

the facility operating licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 06, 2014 (79 FR 25899). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of these amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: 

December 6, 2013, as supplemented by 

letter dated September 19, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) setpoints and 

allowable values for certain area 

temperature instrumentation associated 

with the leak detection system. 

Date of issuance: December 29, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 213 and 174. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14324A808; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–39 and NPF–85: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

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

The supplemental letter dated 

September 19, 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 29, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island 

Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), 

Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 4, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 24, 2014, and 

September 26, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment deleted various reporting 

requirements contained in the Technical 

Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the 

amendment deleted the Sealed Source 

Contamination Special Report and the 

Startup Report, as well as the plantspecific annual reports regarding 

periodic Leak Reduction Program tests, 

Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve 

and Pressurizer Safety Valve challenges, 

specific activity analysis in which the 

primary coolant exceeds the limits of TS 

3.1.4.1, and major changes to 

radioactive waste treatment systems. 

Date of issuance: December 30, 2014. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 284. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14330A300; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–50: Amendment revised the 

license and the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR 

16882). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 

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: 

November 7, as supplemented by letters 

dated November 21 and December 10 

and 19, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised a limited number of 

Technical Specification Surveillance 

Requirements by adding a note or 

footnote permitting a one-time 

extension from a refueling frequency 

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

maximum of 28 months. 

Date of issuance: December 29, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 279. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2754 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 

Accession No. ML14356A012; 

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: November 17, 2014 (79 FR 

68487). The supplemental letters dated 

November 21 and December 10 and 19, 

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 and final 

determination of no significant hazards 

consideration is contained in a safety 

evaluation dated December 29, 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: 

August 15, 2014, as supplemented 

October 20, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) in response to the 

application dated August 15, 2014, as 

supplemented October 20, 2014. The 

amendments revise TS 3.8.7, 

‘‘Distribution Systems—Operating’’ to 

add critical instrumentation Busses as a 

result of the licensee’s decision to 

reconfigure its busses in order to 

comply with the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) Order 

EA–12–049, ‘‘Order to Modify Licenses 

with Regard to Requirements for 

Mitigation Strategies for Beyond Design 

Basis External Events (BDBEE).’’ 

Date of issuance: December 23, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to the end of the spring 2016 

refueling outage for Unit 1 and prior to 

the end of the spring 2015 refueling 

outage for Unit 2. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–272 and 

Unit 2–216. A publicly-available version 

is in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14349A715; 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: September 2, 2014 (79 FR 

52069). The supplemental letter dated 

October 20, 2014, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 

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: 

March 17, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical 

Specification Task Force traveler TSTF– 

535, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Shutdown 

Margin Definition to Address Advanced 

Fuel Designs,’’ which is an approved 

change to the Standard Technical 

Specifications. The changes modify the 

TS definition of ‘‘Shutdown Margin’’ 

(SDM) to require calculation of the SDM 

at a reactor moderator temperature of 

68 °F or a higher temperature that 

represents the most reactive state 

throughout the operating cycle. 

Date of issuance: January 6, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to reactor startup following Unit 1 

refueling outage 1R27 (spring 2016) and 

prior to reactor startup following Unit 2 

refueling outage 2R23 (spring 2015). 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–273 and 

Unit 2–217. A publicly-available version 

is in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14345A895; 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: July 22, 2014, (79 FR 42552). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 31, 2012, as supplemented May 

17, July 2 and September 13, 2013, and 

May 2, July 22, and August 11, 2014. 

Publicly-available copies of these 

documents are available in ADAMS at 

Accession Nos. ML12248A035, 

ML13137A480, ML13184A267, 

ML13256A306, ML14122A364, 

ML14203A252 and ML14223A616. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the licensing basis 

for the VEGP by adding license 

conditions that allow for the voluntary 

implementation of the regulation in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.69, 

‘‘Risk-informed categorization and 

treatment of structures, systems, and 

components for nuclear power 

reactors.’’ As stated in 10 CFR 50.69, a 

licensee may voluntarily comply with 

10 CFR 50.69 as an alternative to 

compliance with the following 

requirements for certain structures, 

systems and components (SSCs) after it 

submits and NRC approves an 

application for license amendment: (i) 

10 CFR part 21; (ii) a portion of 10 CFR 

50.46; (iii) 10 CFR 50.49; (iv) 10 CFR 

50.55(e); (v) certain requirements of 10 

CFR 50.55a; (vi) 10 CFR 50.65, except 

for paragraph (a)(4); (vii) 10 CFR 50.72; 

(viii) 10 CFR 50.73; (ix) Appendix B 

to10 CFR part 50; (x) certain 

containment leakage testing 

requirements; and (xi) certain 

requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR 

part 100. 

Date of issuance: December 17, 2014. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 173 and 155. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML14237A034. 

Documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–68 and NPF–81: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR 

52067). The supplemental letters dated 

May 17 and July 2, 2013, provide 

additional information that clarified the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices 2755 

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 17, 

2014. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day 

of January 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00787 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee On Reactor 

Safeguards; Notice of Meeting 

In accordance with the purposes of 

Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic 

Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting 

on February 5–7, 2015, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

Thursday, February 5, 2015, 

Conference Room T2–B1, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening 

Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 

(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make 

opening remarks regarding the conduct 

of the meeting. 

8:35 a.m.–10:30 a.m.: Final Safety 

Evaluation Report Associated with the 

South Texas Project (STP), Units 3 and 

4, Combined License Application 

(COLA) Referencing the Advanced 

Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) Design 

(Open)—The Committee will hear 

presentations by and hold discussions 

with representatives of the staff and 

NINA regarding the safety evaluation 

associated with the STP, Units 3 and 4, 

COLA. 

10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: Review of the 

Generic Letter (GL)—Treatment of 

Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel 

Cycle Facilities (Open)—The Committee 

will hear presentations by and hold 

discussions with representatives of the 

staff regarding the GL associated with 

hazards at fuel cycle facilities. 

1:15 p.m.–3:15 p.m.: Watts Bar Unit 2 

Operating License (Open)—The 

Committee will hear presentations by 

and hold discussions with 

representatives of the staff and TVA 

regarding the safety evaluation 

associated with the Watts Bar, Unit 2, 

operating license. 

3:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m.: NUREG–0800, 

‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review 

of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plants: LWR Edition,’’ Section 

13.1.2–13.1.3, ‘‘Operating 

Organization,’’ Draft Rev 7 (Open)—The 

Committee will hear presentations by 

and hold discussions with 

representatives of the staff regarding 

specific sections of the Standard Review 

Plan. 

4:30 p.m.–6:00 p.m.: Preparation of 

ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee 

will discuss proposed ACRS reports on 

matters discussed during this meeting. 

Friday, February 6, 2015, Conference 

Room T2–B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 

8:30 a.m.–10:00 a.m.: Future ACRS 

Activities/Report of the Planning and 

Procedures Subcommittee (Open/

Closed)—The Committee will discuss 

the recommendations of the Planning 

and Procedures Subcommittee regarding 

items proposed for consideration by the 

Full Committee during future ACRS 

Meetings, and matters related to the 

conduct of ACRS business, including 

anticipated workload and member 

assignments. NOTE: A portion of this 

meeting may be closed pursuant to 5 

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

organizational and personnel matters 

that relate solely to internal personnel 

rules and practices of ACRS, and 

information the release of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

10:00 a.m.–10:15 a.m.: Reconciliation 

of ACRS Comments and 

Recommendations (Open)—The 

Committee will discuss the responses 

from the NRC Executive Director for 

Operations to comments and 

recommendations included in recent 

ACRS reports and letters. 

10:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.: Preparation for 

Meeting with the Commission in March 

2015 (Open)—The Committee will 

discuss topics in preparation for the 

meeting with the Commission. 

1:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.: Preparation of 

ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee 

will continue its discussion of proposed 

ACRS reports on matters discussed 

during this meeting. 

Saturday, February 7, 2015, Conference 

Room T2–B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 

8:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m.: Preparation of 

ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee 

will continue its discussion of proposed 

ACRS reports. 

11:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.: Miscellaneous 

(Open)—The Committee will continue 

its discussion related to the conduct of 

Committee activities and specific issues 

that were not completed during 

previous meetings. 

Procedures for the conduct of and 

participation in ACRS meetings were 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 13, 2014 (79 FR 59307–59308). 

In accordance with those procedures, 

oral or written views may be presented 

by members of the public, including 

representatives of the nuclear industry. 

Persons desiring to make oral statements 

should notify Quynh Nguyen, Cognizant 

ACRS Staff (Telephone: 301–415–5844, 

Email: Quynh.Nguyen@nrc.gov), five 

days before the meeting, if possible, so 

that appropriate arrangements can be 

made to allow necessary time during the 

meeting for such statements. In view of 

the possibility that the schedule for 

ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the 

Chairman as necessary to facilitate the 

conduct of the meeting, persons 

planning to attend should check with 

the Cognizant ACRS staff if such 

rescheduling would result in major 

inconvenience. 

Thirty-five hard copies of each 

presentation or handout should be 

provided 30 minutes before the meeting. 

In addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be emailed to the 

Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before 

meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be 

provided within this timeframe, 

presenters should provide the Cognizant 

ACRS Staff with a CD containing each 

presentation at least 30 minutes before 

the meeting. 

In accordance with Subsection 10(d) 

of Public Law 92–463 and 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c), certain portions of the February 

6th meeting may be closed, as 

specifically noted above. Use of still, 

motion picture, and television cameras 

during the meeting may be limited to 

selected portions of the meeting as 

determined by the Chairman. Electronic 

recordings will be permitted only 

during the open portions of the meeting. 

ACRS meeting agenda, meeting 

transcripts, and letter reports are 

available through the NRC Public 

Document Room at pdr.resource@

nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1–800– 

397–4209, or from the Publicly 

Available Records System (PARS) 

component of NRC’s document system 

(ADAMS) which is accessible from the 

NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html or http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/ACRS/. 

Video teleconferencing service is 

available for observing open sessions of 

ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES