ML16057A551

NYS Exhibit 2 on Federal Register Dated March 17, 2015

ML16057A551
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/17/2015
From:	State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML16057A531	List: ML16057A532 ML16057A533 ML16057A534 ML16057A536 ML16057A538 ML16057A540 ML16057A543 ML16057A545 ML16057A546 ML16057A547 ML16057A548 ML16057A549 ML16057A551 ML16057A552 ML16057A553 ML16057A554 ML16057A555
References
RAS 50964, ASLBP 15-942-06-LA-BD01, 50-247-LA
Download: ML16057A551 (19)

Text

13902 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices under part 110. The NRC Form 7 application will be reviewed by the NRC

and by the Executive Branch, and if

applicable statutory, regulatory, and

policy considerations are satisfied, the

NRC will issue an export, import,

amendment or renewal license.

III. Specific Requests for Comments Submit, by May 18, 2015, comments that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the

information have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents

be minimized, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology?

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.

[FR Doc. 2015-06014 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0001]

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATES: March 16, 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, 2015. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

Week of March 16, 2015 There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 16, 2015.

Week of March 23, 2015-Tentative

Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1) 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1)

Friday, March 27, 2015

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed-Ex. 1) Week of March 30, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 30, 2015.

Week of April 6, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 6, 2015.

Week of April 13, 2015-Tentative

Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (Public Meeting) (Contact:

Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-415-5775)

This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-http://www.nrc.gov/.

Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control

Program Directors (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-

415-5775)

This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-http://www.nrc.gov/.

Week of April 20, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 20, 2015.

• * * *

• The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify

the status of meetings, contact Glenn

Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at

Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov.

• * * *

• Additional Information

1. By a vote of 3-0 on March 9, 2015, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the

Commission's rules that an Affirmation

Session for Entergy Nuclear Operations,

Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Units 2 and 3)-Petitions for Review of

LBP-13-13 (Partial Initial Decision) and

Related Decisions (Appeals of Board

Decisions Related to Contentions NUS-

8 CW-EC-3) be held with less than one

week notice to the public. The meeting

was held on March 9, 2015.

2. The Affirmation Session for Omaha Public Power District (Fort Calhoun

Station, Unit 1), Petition to Intervene

and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing

by Sierra Club (Apr. 23, 2014),

previously scheduled for March 5, 2015,

was held on March 9, 2015.

3. The meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, scheduled for March 5, 2015, was

postponed.

• * * *

• The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/

public-meetings/schedule.html.

• * * *

• The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to

participate in these public meetings, or

need this meeting notice or the

transcript or other information from the

public meetings in another format (

e.g.

braille, large print), please notify

Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability

Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, by

videophone at 240-428-3217, or by

email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@

nrc.gov.

Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be

made on a case-by-case basis.

• * * *

• Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically.

If you would like to be added to the

distribution, please contact the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Office of the

Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-

415-1969), or email

Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.

Dated: March 13, 2015.

Glenn Ellmers, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-06188 Filed 3-13-15; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590-01--P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0055]

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 February 19,

2015 to March 4, 2015. The last VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00081Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13903 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices biweekly notice was published on March 3, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by April 16, 2015. A request for a hearing must

be filed by May 18, 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-2015-0055. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol

Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463;

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

• Mail comments to:

Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop:

OWFN-12-H08, 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 SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT

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. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION

I. Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0055 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this

action. You may obtain publicly-

available 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-2015-0055.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

(ADAMS):

You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the

ADAMS Public Documents collection at

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

adams.html.

To begin the search, select

ADAMS Public Documents

and then

select

Begin Web-based ADAMS

Search. For problems with ADAMS,

please contact the NRC's Public

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at

1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

The ADAMS accession number for each

document referenced (if it is available in

ADAMS) is provided the first time that

it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

• NRC's PDR:

You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0055, facility name, unit number(s),

application date, and subject in your

comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that

you do not want to be publicly

disclosed in your comment submission.

The NRC posts all comment

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

The NRC does not routinely edit

comment submissions to remove

identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for

submission to the NRC, then you should

inform those persons not to include

identifying or contact information that

they do not want to be publicly

disclosed in their comment submission.

Your request should state that the NRC

does not routinely edit comment

submissions to remove such information

before making the comment

submissions available to the public or

entering the comment submissions into

ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Combined Licenses and

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission's regulations in

§50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment would

not (1) involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated, or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the

expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license

amendment before expiration of the 60-

day period provided that its final

determination is that the amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration. In addition, the

Commission may issue the amendment

prior to the expiration of the 30-day

comment period should circumstances

change during the 30-day comment

period such that failure to act in a

timely way would result, for example in

derating or shutdown of the facility.

Should the Commission take action

prior to the expiration of either the

comment period or the notice period, it

will publish in the Federal Register a

notice of issuance. Should the

Commission make a final No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

any hearing will take place after

issuance. The Commission expects that

the need to take this action will occur

very infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s)

whose interest may be affected by this

action may file a request for a hearing

and a petition to intervene with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license or

combined license. Requests for a

hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene shall be filed in accordance

with the Commission's Agency Rules

of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR

part 2. Interested person(s) should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,

which is available at the NRC's PDR,

located at One White Flint North, Room

O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The

NRC's regulations are accessible

electronically from the NRC Library on

the NRC's Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-

collections/cfr/.

If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed

by the above date, the Commission or a

presiding officer designated by the

Commission or by the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will

rule on the request and/or petition; and

the Secretary or the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of a hearing or an appropriate

order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00082Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13904 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 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 E-

Filing 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 NRC-

issued 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 E-

Submittal server are detailed in the

NRC's Guidance for Electronic

Submission, which is available on the

agency's public Web site at http://

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

submittals.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 Web-

based 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/e-

submittals.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/e-submittals.html.

A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are

submitted through the NRC's E-Filing

system. To be timely, an electronic

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of

a transmission, the E-Filing system

time-stamps the document and sends

the submitter an email notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

E-Filing system also distributes an email

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRC's Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore,

applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they

can obtain access to the document via

the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the

NRC Meta System Help Desk through

the Contact Us link located on the

NRC's public Web site at http://

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

submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC

Meta System Help Desk is available VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00083Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13905 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,

excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file an

exemption request, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper

filing requesting authorization to

continue to submit documents in paper

format. Such filings must be submitted

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the

Office of the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,

express mail, or expedited delivery

service to the Office of the Secretary,

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking

and Adjudications Staff. Participants

filing a document in this manner are

responsible for serving the document on

all other participants. Filing is

considered complete by first-class mail

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or

by courier, express mail, or expedited

delivery service upon depositing the

document with the provider of the

service. A presiding officer, having

granted an exemption request from

using E-Filing, may require a participant

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding

officer subsequently determines that the

reason for granting the exemption from

use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's

electronic hearing docket which is

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/,

unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission,

or the presiding officer. Participants are

requested not to include personal

privacy information, such as social

security numbers, home addresses, or

home phone numbers in their filings,

unless an NRC regulation or other law

requires submission of such

information. However, a request to

intervene will require including

information on local residence in order

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of

interest in the proceeding. With respect

to copyrighted works, except for limited

excerpts that serve the purpose of the

adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,

participants are requested not to include

copyrighted materials in their

submission.

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the

date of publication of this notice.

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave

to intervene, and motions for leave to

file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will

not be entertained absent a

determination by the presiding officer

that the filing demonstrates good cause

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR

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

For further details with respect to these license amendment applications,

see the application for amendment

which is available for public inspection

in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For

additional direction on accessing

information related to this document,

see the Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments section of this

document.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al.,

Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit

3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3),

Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request:

November 7, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14321A450.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would reflect the

transfer of ownership, held by eight

minority co-owners, in CR-3 to DEF.

The transfer of ownership will take

place pursuant to the Settlement,

Release and Acquisition Agreement,

dated September 26, 2014, wherein DEF

will purchase the 6.52 percent

combined ownership share in CR-3

held by these minority co-owners,

leaving DEF and Seminole Electric

Cooperative, Inc., as the remaining

licensees for CR-3.

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 of any

accident previously evaluated because no

accident initiators or assumptions are

affected. The proposed license transfers are

administrative in nature and have no direct

effect on any plant system, plant personnel

qualifications, or the operation and

maintenance of CR-3.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated

because no new accident initiators or

assumptions are introduced by the proposed

changes. The proposed license transfers are administrative in nature and have no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel

qualifications, or operation and maintenance

of CR-3.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety

because the proposed changes do not involve

changes to the initial conditions contributing

to accident severity or consequences, or

reduce response or mitigation capabilities.

The proposed license transfers are

administrative in nature and have no direct

effect on any plant system, plant personnel

qualifications, or operation and maintenance

of CR-3.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to

determine that the amendment request

involves no significant hazards

consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC

28202. NRC Branch Chief:

Douglas A.

Broaddus.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point

Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester

County, New York Date of amendment request:

December 9, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14353A015.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would revise Technical

Specification 5.5.14, Containment

Leakage Rate Testing Program, to

extend the frequency of the

Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test

or Type A Test from once every 10 years

to once every 15 years on a permanent

basis. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed amendment involves changes to the IP2 [Indian Point Unit No. 2]

containment leakage rate testing program.

The proposed amendment does not involve

a physical change to the plant or a change in

the manner in which the plant is operated or

controlled. The primary containment

function is to provide an essentially leak

tight barrier against the uncontrolled release

of radioactivity to the environment for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00084Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13906 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices postulated accidents. As such, the containment itself 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.

Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased by the proposed

amendment.

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision

2A, for development of the IP2 performance-

based testing program for the Type A testing.

Implementation of these guidelines continues

to provide adequate assurance that during

design basis accidents, the primary

containment and its components would limit

leakage rates to less than the values assumed

in the plant safety analyses. The potential

consequences of extending the ILRT

[integrated leak rate test] interval to 15 years

have been evaluated by analyzing the

resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk

in terms of person-rem per year within 50

miles resulting from design basis accidents

was estimated to be acceptably small and

determined to be within the guidelines

published in RG 1.174. Additionally, the

proposed change maintains defense-in-depth

by preserving a reasonable balance among

prevention of core damage, prevention of

containment failure, and consequence

mitigation. Entergy has determined that the increase in conditional containment failure

probability due to the proposed change

would be very small. Therefore, it is

concluded that the proposed amendment

does not significantly increase the

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision

2A, for the development of the IP2

performance-based leakage testing program,

and establishes a 15-year interval for the

performance of the containment ILRT. 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.

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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A, for the development of the IP2

performance-based leakage testing program,

and establishes a 15-year interval for the

performance of the containment ILRT. This

amendment does not alter the manner in

which safety limits, limiting safety system

setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation

are determined. The specific requirements

and conditions of the containment leakage

rate testing program, as defined in the TS

[technical specifications], ensure that the

degree of primary containment structural

integrity and leak-tightness that is considered

in the plant's safety analysis is maintained.

The overall containment leakage rate limit

specified by the TS is maintained, and the

Type A containment leakage tests would be

performed at the frequencies established in

accordance with the NRC-accepted

guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A with no

change to the 60 month frequencies of Type B, and Type C tests.

Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve

to provide a high degree of assurance that the

containment would not degrade in a manner

that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk

assessment using the current IP2 PSA

[probabilistic safety assessment] model

concluded that extending the ILRT test

interval from ten years to 15 years results in

a very small change to the risk profile.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy

Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton

Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.

NRC Branch Chief:

Benjamin G.

Beasley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego

County, New York Date of amendment request:

November 19, 2014. A publicly-

available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML14329A353.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would

modify the Nine Mile Point (NMP)

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical

Specifications (TS) by relocating

specific surveillance frequencies to a

licensee-controlled program with the

adoption of Technical Specification

Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3,

Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to

Licensee Control-Risk Informed

Technical Specification Task Force

(RITSTF) Initiative 5b. The licensee's

application dated November 19, 2014, , section 2.2, has identified

some variations or deviations from the

TSTF-425. Additionally, the change

would add a new program, the

Surveillance Frequency Control

Program, to TS section 5,

Administrative Controls. The NRC staff

issued a notice of opportunity for

comment in the Federal Register on December 5, 2008, 73 FR 74202, on

possible amendments to revise the plant

specific TS, to Relocate Surveillance

Frequencies to Licensee Control-

RITSTF Initiative 5b. The Notice

included a model safety evaluation and

model No Significant Hazards

Consideration (NSHC) determination,

using the consolidated line-item

improvement process. The NRC staff

subsequently issued a notice of

availability of the models for referencing

in license amendment applications in

the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The licensee affirmed the

applicability of the model NSHC

determination in its application dated

November 19, 2014, which is presented

below. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for periodic

surveillance requirements to licensee control

under a new Surveillance Frequency Control

Program (SFCP). Surveillance frequencies are

not an initiator to any accident previously

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any

accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased. The systems and

components required by the technical

specifications for which the surveillance

frequencies are relocated are still required to

be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for

the surveillance requirements, and be

capable of performing any mitigation

function assumed in the accident analysis.

As a result, the consequences of any accident

previously evaluated are not significantly

increased.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed changes. The changes

do not involve a physical alteration of the

plant (i.e., no new or different type of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00085Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13907 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant

operation. In addition, the changes do not

impose any new or different requirements.

The changes do not alter assumptions made

in the safety analysis. The proposed changes

are consistent with the safety analysis

assumptions and current plant operating

practice.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems,

structures, and components (SSCs), specified

in applicable codes and standards (or

alternatives approved for use by the NRC)

will continue to be met as described in the

plant licensing basis (including the final

safety analysis report and bases to TS), since

these are not affected by changes to the

surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is

no impact to safety analysis acceptance

criteria as described in plant licensing basis.

To evaluate a change in the relocated

surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform

a probabilistic risk evaluation using the

guidance contained in NRC approved NEI

04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS

SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology

provides reasonable acceptance guidelines

and methods for evaluating the risk increase

of proposed changes to surveillance

frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide

1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

J. Bradley Fewell, Senior Vice President,

Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General

Counsel, Exelon Generation Company,

LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville,

IL 60555.

NRC Branch Chief:

Benjamin G.

Beasley.

Exelon Generation Company LLC (),

Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,

Will County, Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle

County, Illinois Date of amendment request:

December 18, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14352A204.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would increase the voltage limit for the diesel

generator (DG) full load rejection test

specified by technical specification (TS)

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10.

Additionally, the proposed amendment

would add Note 3 to TS SR 3.8.1.10 for

alignment with the Standard Technical

Specifications documented in NUREG-

1431, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession

No. ML12100A222).

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: EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has evaluated the proposed change for Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using

the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has

determined that the proposed change does

not involve a significant hazards

consideration. The following information is

provided to support a finding of no

significant hazards consideration.

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The DGs design function is to mitigate an accident and there are no analyzed scenarios

where the DGs are initiators of any

previously evaluated accident. Since DGs do

not initiate accidents, this change does not

increase the probability of occurrence of a

previously evaluated accident. The proposed

change to the testing approach of the DGs is

consistent with the original design of the

DGs. The proposed change is in accordance

with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.9 Revision 3,

and this change to the testing approach does

not impact the DGs ability to mitigate

accidents. The DGs will continue to operate

within the parameters and conditions

assumed within the accident analysis. This

change does not result in an increase in the

likelihood of malfunction of the DGs or their

supported equipment. Since the DGs will

continue to perform its required function,

there is no increase in the consequences of

previously evaluated accidents.

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 amendment does not change the DGs operation or ability to perform its

design function. The proposed change to TS

SR 3.8.1.10 at increased voltage will ensure

the DGs ability to perform at rated power

factor while meeting its requirements. The

change to TS SR 3.8.1.10 does not result in

DG operation that would create a new failure

mode of the DGs that could create a new

initiator of an accident. This is because the

DGs ability to perform its design function is

maintained in the same manner as originally designed. The proposed change does not change the single failure capabilities of the

electrical power system or create a potential

for loss of power since the design operation

of the DGs is maintained.

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 margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems,

and components, the parameters within

which the plant is operated, and the

setpoints for the actuation of equipment

relied upon to respond to an event. The

proposed change does not modify the safety

limits or setpoints at which protective

actions are initiated. The proposed change

increases the voltage limit for the DG full

load rejection test which results in new test

acceptance criterion that is more restrictive

than the existing acceptance criteria. The

proposed change ensures the availability and

operability of safety-related DGs.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. Based on the above evaluation, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment

presents no significant hazards consideration

under the standards set forth in 10 CFR

50.92, paragraph (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

requested amendments involve no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Bradley J.

Fewell, Associate General Counsel,

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road,

Warrenville, IL 60555.

NRC Branch Chief:

Travis L. Tate.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry

Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1,

Perry, Ohio Date of amendment request:

November 24, 2014. A publicly-

available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML14328A665.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment is intended to

revise the battery capacity testing surveillance requirements in the

technical specifications to reflect test

requirements when the battery is near

end of life.

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: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00086Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13908 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed amendment does not change the design function of the Class 1 E

divisional battery systems and does not

change the way the plant is maintained or

operated when performing battery

surveillance testing. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident

mitigating feature or increase the likelihood

of malfunction for plant structures, systems

and components.

The proposed amendment does not affect the operability requirements of the Class 1 E

divisional battery systems. Verification of

operating the plant within prescribed limits

will continue to be performed, as currently

required. Compliance with and continued

verification of the prescribed limits support

the capability of the Class 1 E divisional

battery systems to perform their required

design functions during all plant operating,

accident, and station blackout conditions,

consistent with the plant safety analyses.

The proposed amendment will not change any of the analyses associated with the PNPP

Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15

accidents because plant operation, plant

structures, systems, components, accident

initiators, and accident mitigation functions

remain unchanged.

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 change the design function of the Class 1 E

divisional battery systems, and does not

change the way the plant is operated or

maintained. The proposed amendment does

not create a credible failure mechanism,

malfunction or accident initiator not already

considered in the design and licensing basis.

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.

Safety margins are applied to design and licensing basis functions and to the

controlling values of parameters to account

for various uncertainties and to avoid

exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The

proposed amendment does not involve a

physical change to the plant, does not change

methods of plant operation within prescribed

limits, or affect design and licensing basis

functions or controlling values of parameters

for plant systems, structures, and

components.

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:

David W.

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy

Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.

NRC Branch Chief:

Travis L. Tate.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie

County, Florida Date of amendment request:

August 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.

ML14225A630).

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would revise the

Technical Specifications to add a short

Allowed Outage Time to restore an

inoperable system for conditions under

which the existing specifications require

a plant shutdown. The proposed

amendment is consistent with an NRC-

approved change identified as Technical

Specifications Task Force (TSTF)

Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, Revise

or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into

LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]

3.0.3-RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]

Initiatives 6b & 6c (see 78 FR 32476,

May 30, 2013). The Allowed Outage

Time would be added to specifications

governing the boron injection flow paths

of the reactivity control systems,

pressurizer heaters, containment spray

trains, shield building ventilation

systems, and control room emergency

air cleanup systems.

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 reproduced

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change provides a short Allowed Outage Time to restore an

inoperable system for conditions under

which the existing Technical Specifications

require a plant shutdown to begin within one

hour in accordance with Limiting Condition

for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3. Entering into

Technical Specification Actions is not an

initiator of any accident previously

evaluated. As a result, the probability of an

accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased. The consequences of

any accident previously evaluated that may

occur during the proposed Allowed Outage

Times are no different from the consequences

of the same accident during the existing one-

hour allowance. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously

evaluated are not significantly increased.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

No new or different accidents [would]

result from utilizing the proposed change.

The changes [to the TSs] do not involve a

physical alteration of the plant (

i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be

installed) or a change in the methods

governing normal plant operation. In

addition, the changes do not impose any new

or different requirements. The changes do not

alter assumptions made in [any] safety

analysis.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change increases the time the plant may operate without the ability to

perform an assumed safety function. The

analyses in [the NRC-approved topical

report] WCAP-16125-NP-A, Justification

for Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected

Technical Specifications for Conditions

Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,

Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that

there is an acceptably small increase in risk

due to a limited period of continued

operation in these conditions and that this

risk is balanced by avoiding the risks

associated with a plant shutdown. As a

result, the change to the margin of safety

provided by requiring a plant shutdown

within one hour is not significant.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and 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 Company, 700

Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno

Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Branch Chief:

Shana R. Helton.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie

County, Florida Date of amendment request:

December 5, 2014 (ADAMS Accession

No. ML14353A016).

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment will modify

the Technical Specification (TS) VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00087Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13909 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices requirements related to Completion Times for Required Actions to provide

the option to calculate longer, risk-

informed Completion Times. The

proposed amendment will also add a

new program, the Risk Informed

Completion Time Program, to TS

section 6.0, Administrative Controls.

The methodology for using the Risk

Informed Completion Time Program is

described in Nuclear Energy Institute

topical report NEI 06-09, Risk-

Informed Technical Specifications

Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical

Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines,

Revision 0-A, which was approved by

the NRC on May 17, 2007. The proposed

amendment is consistent with the NRC-

approved industry-proposed Technical

Specification Task Force-505, Revision

1, Provide Risk-Informed Extended

Completion Times-RITSTF Initiative

4b. 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 reproduced

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided the

associated risk is assessed and managed in

accordance with the NRC[-]approved Risk

Informed Completion Time Program. The

proposed change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability of an

accident previously evaluated because the

change involves no change to the plant or its

modes of operation. The proposed change

does not increase the consequences of an

accident because the design-basis mitigation

function of the affected systems is not

changed and the consequences of an accident

[occurring] during the extended Completion

Time are no different from those [occurring]

during the existing Completion Time.

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 does not change the design, configuration, or method of operation

of the plant. The proposed change does not

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no

new or different kind of equipment will be

installed).

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk is assessed and managed in accordance with

the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed

Completion Time Program. The proposed

change implements a risk-informed

configuration management program to assure

that adequate margins of safety are

maintained. Application of these new

specifications and the configuration

management program considers cumulative

effects of multiple systems or components

being out of service and does so more

effectively than the current TS.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and 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 Company, 700

Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno

Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Branch Chief:

Shana R. Helton.

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:

December 17, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14356A022.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would amend

the Appendix A technical specifications

to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-58

and DPR-74, to modify the notes to TS

3.8.1, AC Sources-Operating, to

allow surveillance testing of the onsite

standby emergency diesel generators

(DGs) during modes in which it is

currently prohibited. Specifically, the

license amendment request proposes

removing the mode restrictions for the

following Surveillance Requirements

(SRs): 3.8.1.10 (DG single largest load

rejection test), 3.8.1.11 (DG full load

rejection test), and 3.8.1.15 (DG

endurance run).

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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the proposed changes. In

addition, the DGs and their associated

emergency loads are accident mitigating features. As such, testing of the DGs themselves is not associated with any

potential accident-initiating mechanism.

Therefore, there will be no significant impact on any accident probabilities by the

approval of the requested changes.

The changes include an increase in the time that a DG under test will be paralleled

to the grid while the unit is in Modes 1 or

2. As such, the ability of the tested DG to

respond to a DBA [design-basis accident]

could be minimally adversely impacted by

the proposed changes. However, the impacts

are not considered significant based, in part,

on the ability of the remaining DG to mitigate

a DBA or provide safe shutdown. Experience

shows that testing for these SRs typically

does not perturb the electrical distribution

system. In addition, operating experience

supports the conclusion that the proposed

changes do not involve any significant increases in the likelihood of a safety-related

bus blackout or damage to plant loads.

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 capability to synchronize a DG to the offsite source (via the associated plant bus)

and test the DG in such a configuration is a

design feature of the DGs, including the test

mode override in response to a safety

injection signal. Paralleling the DG for longer

periods of time during plant operation may

slightly increase the probability of incurring

an adverse effect from the offsite source, but

this increase in probability is judged to be

still quite small and such a possibility is not

a new or previously unrecognized

consideration.

The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation and does not

involve physical modification to the plant.

The change does not introduce new accident

initiators or impact assumptions made in the

safety analysis.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit, so there

is no significant reduction in the margin of

safety. The margin of safety is related to the

confidence in the ability of the fission

product barriers to perform their design

functions during and following an accident

situation. These barriers include the fuel

cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the

containment system. The proposed changes

do not directly affect these barriers, nor do

they involve any significantly adverse impact

on the DGs which serve to support these

barriers in the event of an accident

concurrent with a LOOP [loss of offsight

power]. The proposed changes to the testing

requirements for the plant DGs do not affect

the OPERABILITY requirements for the DGs, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00088Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13910 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices as verification of such OPERABILITY will continue to be performed as required (except

during different allowed modes). The

changes have an insignificant impact on DG

availability, as the DGs remain available to

perform their required function of providing

emergency power to plant equipment that

supports or constitutes the fission product

barriers. Only one DG is to be tested at a

time, so that the remaining DG will be

available to safety shut down the plant if

required. Consequently, performance of the

fission product barriers will not be impacted

by implementation of the proposed

amendment.

In addition, the proposed changes involve no changes to setpoints or limits established

or assumed by the accident analysis.

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 requests involve no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Robert B.

Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One

Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.

NRC Branch Chief:

David L. Pelton.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket

No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:

January 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15021A127.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise

the Technical Specifications (TSs) to

add a limiting condition for operation,

applicability, required actions,

completion times, and surveillance

requirements for the residual heat

removal (RHR) containment spray

system consistent with the guidance in

NUREG-1433, Revision 4, Standard

Technical Specifications General

Electric BWR [Boiling Water Reactor]/4

Plants, dated April 2012 (ADAMS

Accession No. ML12104A192). New TS

section 3.6.1.9, Residual Heat Removal

(RHR) Containment Spray, would be

added to reflect the reliance on

containment spray to maintain the

drywell within design temperature

limits during a small steam line break.

In addition, the Drywell Pressure-

High function that serves as an

interlock permissive to allow RHR

containment spray mode alignment

would be relocated from the Technical

Requirements Manual (TRM) to TS

3.3.5.1, Emergency Core Cooling

System (ECCS) Instrumentation.

The requirements for the RHR containment spray function and

Drywell Pressure-High function are

currently contained in TRM sections

T3.6.1, RHR Containment Spray, and

T3.3.2, ECCS and Reactor Core

Isolation Cooling Instrumentation,

respectively. These TRM sections

established specific guidance and

criteria related to the applicability,

operation, and testing for the RHR

containment spray system. The TRM

requirements for the RHR containment

spray system would be removed once

the TS requirements are approved.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does

not introduce new equipment or new

equipment operating modes, nor do the

proposed changes alter existing system

relationships. The proposed change does not

affect plant operation, design function, or any

analysis that verifies the capability of a

structure, system, or component (SSC) to

perform a design function. There are no

changes or modifications to the RHR system.

The RHR system will continue to function as

designed in all modes of operation, including the Containment Spray function. There are

no significant changes to procedures or

training related to the operation of the

Containment Spray function. Primary

containment integrity is not adversely

impacted and radiological consequences

from the accidents analyzed in the Updated

Safety Analysis Report (USAR) are not

increased. Containment parameters are not

increased beyond those previously evaluated

and the potential for failure of the

containment is not increased.

There is no adverse impact on systems designed to mitigate the consequences of

accidents. The proposed change does not

increase system or component pressures,

temperatures, and flowrates for systems

designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the

consequences of an accident. Since these

conditions do not change, the likelihood of

failure of SSC is not increased.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does

not alter the design function or operation of

any SSC. The Containment system will

continue to function as designed in all modes

of operation, including RHR Containment Spray function. There is no new system component being installed, no new

construction, and no performance of a new

test or maintenance function. The proposed

TS change does not create the possibility of

a new credible failure mechanism or

malfunction. The proposed change does not

modify the design function or operation of

any SSC. The proposed change does not

introduce new accident initiators. Primary

containment integrity is not adversely

impacted and radiological consequences

from the accident analyzed in the USAR are

not increased. Containment parameters are

not increased beyond those previously

evaluated and the potential for failure of the

containment is not increased. The proposed

change does not increase system or

component pressures, temperatures, and

flowrates for systems designed to prevent

accidents or mitigate the consequences of an

accident. Since these conditions do not

change, the likelihood of failure of an SSC is

not increased.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change does not increase system or component pressures,

temperatures, and flowrates for systems

designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the

consequences of an accident. Containment

parameters are not increased beyond those

previously evaluated and the potential for

failure of the containment is not increased.

The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS is

needed in order to reflect the current safety

function of Containment Spray related to the

small steam line break accident. The

proposed change does not exceed or alter a

design basis or a safety limit parameter that

is described in the USAR.

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. John C.

McClure, Nebraska Public Power

District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus,

NE 68602-0499.

Acting NRC Branch Chief:

Eric R. Oesterle.

Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,

Minnesota Date of amendment request:

February 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters

dated June 25, 2013; September 15, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00089Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13911 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 2014; and February 26, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under

Accession Nos. ML13053A199,

ML13178A024, ML14258A089, and

ML15057A480, respectively.

Brief description of amendment request:

The proposed amendments would remove the technical

specification (TS) 3.5.3 ECCS

[Emergency Core Cooling System]-

Shutdown, Limiting Condition for

Operation (LCO) Note 1 to eliminate

information to the plant operators that

could cause non-conservative operation,

and would revise the LCO Applicability

statement to apply to all of Mode 4.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which the Commission

previously issued in the Federal Register on August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51229). The licensee revised its analysis

of the issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below, to consider expansion of the

scope of the amendments by revising

the LCO Applicability statement to

include all of Mode 4.

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification for

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by

removing the LCO Note which allows the

RHR [residual heat removal] subsystem to be

considered operable for ECCS when aligned

for shutdown cooling and revising the

Applicability statement to include all of

Mode 4. These changes will require one train

of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation

throughout Mode 4.

The proposed changes do not affect the ECCS and RHR subsystem design, the

interfaces between the RHR subsystem and

other plant systems' operating functions, or

the reliability of the RHR subsystem. The

proposed changes do not change or impact

the initiators and assumptions of the

analyzed accidents. Therefore, the ECCS and

RHR subsystems will be capable of

performing their accident mitigation

functions, and the proposed TS changes do

not involve an increase in the probability of

an accident.

The proposed TS changes will require that one train of RHR is aligned for ECCS

operation during Mode 4 which assures that

one train of ECCS is operable to mitigate the

consequences of a loss of coolant accident.

Thus the proposed TS changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

consequences of an accident.

Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification for

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by

removing the LCO Note which allows the

RHR subsystem to be considered operable for

ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling

and revising the Applicability statement to

include all of Mode 4. These changes will

require one train of RHR to be aligned for

ECCS operation throughout Mode 4.

The proposed Technical Specification changes involve changes to when system

trains are operated, but they do not change

any system functions or maintenance

activities. The changes do not involve

physical alteration of the plant, that is, no

new or different type of equipment will be

installed. The changes do not alter

assumptions made in the safety analyses but

ensure that one train of ECCS is operable to

mitigate the consequences of a loss of coolant

accident. These changes do not create new

failure modes or mechanisms which are not

identifiable during testing and no new

accident precursors are generated.

Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do 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.

This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification [TS] for

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by

removing the LCO Note which allows the

RHR subsystem to be considered operable for

ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling

and revising the Applicability statement to

include all of Mode 4. These changes will

require one train of RHR to be aligned for

ECCS operation throughout Mode 4.

This license amendment proposes Technical Specification changes which

assure that the ECCS-Shutdown TS LCO

requirements are met if a Mode 4 LOCA were

to occur. With these changes, other TS

requirements for shutdown cooling in Mode

4 will continue to be met. Based on review

of plant operating experience, there is no

discernable change in cooldown rates when

utilizing a single train of RHR for shutdown

cooling. Thus, no margin of safety is reduced

as part of this change.

Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment requests involve no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall,

Minneapolis, MN 55401.

NRC Branch Chief:

David L. Pelton.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-

366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,

Units 1 and 2, Appling County, GA Date of amendment request:

January 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15014A411.

Description of amendment request:

The licensee proposes to adopt

Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF) change number 523, revision 2,

Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas

Accumulation, for the Hatch Nuclear

Plant, Unit 1 and 2, technical

specifications (TS). The proposed

change would revise or add

Surveillance Requirements to verify that

the system locations susceptible to gas

accumulation are sufficiently filled with

water and to provide allowances which

permit performance of the verification.

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 Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that

require verification that the Emergency Core

Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat

Removal (RHR) System, the 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. 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

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the

RHR, the RHR SDC System, the CS System,

and the RCIC System are not rendered

inoperable due to accumulated gas and to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00090Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13912 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 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, RHR SDC System, the CS System, and

the RCIC System 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. Based on the above, SNC 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:

Jennifer M.

Buettner, Associate General Counsel,

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

40 Inverness Center Parkway,

Birmingham, AL 35201.

NRC Branch Chief:

Robert J.

Pascarelli.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South

Carolina Date of amendment request:

January 27, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15028A537.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed change, if approved,

would revise, in part, the description

and scope of human factors engineering

(HFE) operational sequence analysis

(OSA) task and delete a reference to

document WCAP-15847, which are

both identified as Tier 2* information in

the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR).

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

that 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 safety-

related 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 from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes to 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:

Ms. Kathryn M.

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20004-2514.

NRC Branch Chief:

Lawrence J.

Burkhart.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026,

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3

and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:

January 30, 2015. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15030A505.

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 Tier 2* information

contained within the Human Factors

Engineering Design Verification, Task

Support Verification and Integrated

System Validation (ISV) plans. These

documents are incorporated by

reference into the VEGP Units 3 and 4

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report,

and will additionally require changes to

be made to affected Tier 2 information.

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? VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00091Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13913 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Response: No.

The proposed amendment includes changes to Integrated System Validation

(ISV) activities, which are performed on the

AP1000 plant simulator to validate the

adequacy of the AP1000 human system

interface design and confirm that it meets

human factors engineering principles. The

proposed changes involve administrative

details related to performance of the ISV, and

no plant hardware or equipment is affected

whose failure could initiate an accident, or

that interfaces with a component that could

initiate an accident, or that contains

radioactive material. Therefore, these

changes have no effect on any accident

initiator in the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR), nor do they affect the

radioactive material releases in the UFSAR

accident analysis.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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 includes changes to ISV activities, which are

performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to

validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human

system interface design and confirm that it

meets human factors engineering principles.

The proposed changes involve administrative

details related to performance of the ISV, and

no plant hardware or equipment is affected

whose failure could initiate an accident, or

that interfaces with a component that could

initiate an accident, or that contains

radioactive material. Although the ISV may

identify a need to initiate changes to add,

modify, or remove plant structures, systems,

or components, these changes will not be

made directly as part of the ISV.

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 includes changes to ISV activities, which are

performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to

validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human

system interface design and confirm that it

meets human factors engineering principles.

The proposed changes involve administrative

details related to performance of the ISV, and

do not affect any safety-related equipment,

design code compliance, design 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

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.

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 amendment request:

September 13, 2012, as supplemented

August 2, 2013, July 3, July 17,

November 11, and December 12, 2014.

Publicly-available versions are in

ADAMS under Accession Nos.

ML12258A055, ML13217A072,

ML14189A554, ML14198A574,

ML14315A051 and ML14346A643,

respectively.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would

modify certain Technical Specification

(TS) requirements related to Completion

Times for Required Actions to provide

the option to calculate a longer, risk-

informed Completion Time. The

allowance will be described in a new

program, Risk Informed Completion

Time Program (RICT), to be approved

by NRC and to be added to Chapter 5,

Administrative Controls, of the

Technical Specifications. The

methodology for using the RICT

Program is described in an industry

document NEI 06-09, Risk-Informed

Technical Specifications Initiative 4b,

Risk-Managed Technical Specifications

(RMTS) Guidelines, which was

approved by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) on May 17, 2007.

Adherence to NEI 06-09 is required by

the proposed RICT Program. The

proposed amendment is also consistent

with the methodologies presented in an industry initiative identified as TSTF-

505, Revision 1, Provide Risk-Informed

Extended Completion Times-RITSTF

Initiative 4b. Although the proposed

amendment is consistent with TSTF-

505, the licensee is not proposing

adoption of TSTF-505 with this

proposed amendment; the proposed

amendment is a site-specific action.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk

is assessed and managed within the Risk

Informed Completion Time Program. The

proposed change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability of an

accident previously evaluated because the

changes involve no change to the plant or its

modes of operation. This proposed change

does not increase the consequences of an

accident because the design-basis mitigation

function of the affected systems is not

changed and the consequences of an accident

during the extended Completion Time are no

different from those during the existing

Completion Time.

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 change does not change the design, configuration, or method of operation

of the plant. The proposed change does not

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no

new or different kind of equipment will be

installed).

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety[?]

Response: No.

The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk

is assessed and managed within the Risk

Informed Completion Time Program. The

proposed change implements a risk-informed

configuration management program to assure

that adequate margins of safety are

maintained. Application of these new

specifications and the configuration

management program considers cumulative

effects of multiple systems or components

being out of service and does so more

effectively than the current TS.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

requested amendment involve no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Jennifer M.

Buettner, Associate General Counsel,

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

40 Inverness Center Parkway,

Birmingham, AL 35242.

NRC Branch Chief:

Robert J.

Pascarelli. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00092Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13914 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),

Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328,

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1

and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date of amendment request:

December 2, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14339A539.

Description of amendment request:

The amendments would revise

Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.h,

Containment Leakage Rate Testing

Program, by adopting Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A,

Industry Guideline for Implementing

Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR

part 50, Appendix J, as the

implementation document for the

performance-based Option B of 10 CFR

part 50, Appendix J. The proposed

changes would permanently extend the

Type A containment integrated leak rate

testing (ILRT) interval from 10 years to

15 years, and the Type C local leakage

rate testing (LLRT) intervals from 60

months to 75 months.

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 consequence of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR

part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The

current type A test interval of 10 years would

be extended to 15 years from the last Type

A test. The proposed extension to Type A

testing does not involve a significant increase

in the consequences of an accident because

research documented in NUREG-1493,

Performance-Based Containment System

Leakage Testing Requirements [sic]

[Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test

Program], September 1995, has found that,

generically, very few potential containment

leakage paths are not identified by Type B

and C tests. NUREG-1493 concluded that

reducing the Type A testing frequency to one

per twenty years was found to lead to an

imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree

of assurance is provided through testing and

inspection that the containment will not

degrade in a manner detectable only by Type

A testing. The last Type A test (performed

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2) shows

leakage to be below acceptance criteria,

indicating a very leak tight containment.

Inspections required by the ASME [American

Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code

section Xl (subsections IWE and IWL) and

Maintenance Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65,

Requirements for Monitoring the

Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear

Power Plants), are performed in order to

identify indications of containment

degradation that could affect that leak

tightness. Types B and C testing required by

TSs will identify any containment opening

such as valves that would otherwise be

detected by the Type A tests. These factors

show that a Type A test interval extension

will not represent a significant increase in

the consequences of an accident.

The proposed amendment involves changes to the SQN, Units 1 and 2, 10 CFR

50 Appendix J Testing Program Plan. The

proposed amendment does not involve a

physical change to the plant or a change in

the manner in which the units are operated

or controlled. The primary containment

function is to provide an essentially leak

tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for

postulated accidents. As such, the

containment itself 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, and do not

involve any accident precursors or initiators.

Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased by the proposed

amendment.

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision

3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1

and 2, performance-based leakage testing

program. Implementation of these guidelines

continues to provide adequate assurance that

during design basis accidents, the primary

containment and its components will limit

leakage rates to less than the values assumed

in the plant safety analyses. The potential

consequences of extending the ILRT interval

from 10 years to 15 years have been

evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes

in risk. The increase in risk in terms of

person-rem per year resulting from design

basis accidents was estimated to be very

small, and the increase in the LERF [large

early release frequency] resulting from the

proposed change was determined to be

within the guidelines published in NRC RG

[Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, the

proposed change maintains defense-in-depth

by preserving a reasonable balance among

prevention of core damage, prevention of

containment failure, and consequence

mitigation. TVA has determined that the

increase in CCFP [conditional containment

failure probability] due to the proposed

change would be very small.

Based on the above discussions, the proposed changes do not involve an increase

in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-

year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The current test interval of 10 years, based on

past performance, would be extended to 15

years from the last Type A test (performed

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The

proposed extension to Type A and Type C

test intervals does not create the possibility

of a new or different type of accident because

there are no physical changes being made to

the plant and there are no changes to the

operation of the plant that could introduce a

new failure mode creating an accident or

affecting the mitigation of an accident.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-

year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR

part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The

current test interval of 10 years, based on

past performance, would be extended to 15

years from the last Type A test (performed

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The

proposed extension to Type A testing will

not significantly reduce the margin of safety.

NUREG-1493, Performance-Based

Containment System Leakage Testing

Requirements [sic] [Performance-Based

Containment Leak-Test Program],

September 1995, generic study of the effects

of extending containment leakage testing,

found that a 20-year extension to Type A

leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible

increase in risk to the public. NUREG-1493

found that, generically, the design

containment leakage rate contributes about

0.1% to the individual risk and that the

decrease in Type A testing frequency would

have a minimal effect on this risk since 95%

of the potential leakage paths are detected by

Type C testing. Regular inspections required

by the ASME Code section Xl (subsections

IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule

monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for

Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance

at Nuclear Power Plants) will further reduce

the risk of a containment leakage path going

undetected.

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision

3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1

and 2, performance-based leakage testing

program, and establishes a 15-year interval

for the performance of the primary

containment ILRT and a 75-month interval

for Type C testing. The amendment does not

alter the manner in which safety limits,

limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting

conditions for operation are determined. The

specific requirements and conditions of the

10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Testing Program

Plan, as defined in the TS, ensure that the

degree of primary containment structural

integrity and leak-tightness that is considered

in the plant safety analyses is maintained.

The overall containment leakage rate limit

specified by the TS is maintained, and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00093Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13915 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests will continue to be performed at the

frequencies established in accordance with

the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01,

Revision 3-A.

Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve

to provide a high degree of assurance that the

containment will not degrade in a manner

that is detectable only by an ILRT. This

ensures that evidence of containment

structural degradation is identified in a

timely manner. Furthermore, a risk assessment using the current SQN, Units 1

and 2, PRA model concluded that extending

the ILRT test interval from 10 years to 15

years results in a very small change to the

SQN, Units 1 and 2, risk profile.

Accordingly, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,

400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West

Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.

NRC Branch Chief:

Shana R. Helton.

III. Previously Published Notices of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Combined Licenses,

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination, and

Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual

notices. The notice content was the

same as above. They were published as

individual notices either because time

did not allow the Commission to wait

for this biweekly notice or because the

action involved exigent circumstances.

They are repeated here because the

biweekly notice lists all amendments

issued or proposed to be issued

involving no significant hazards

consideration.

For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and

page cited. This notice does not extend

the notice period of the original notice.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester

County, New York Date of amendment request:

February 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15044A471.

Brief description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would allow a revision to the acceptance criteria for the Surveillance

Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control Rod G-

3. During the last two performances of

this Surveillance on September 18,

2014, and December 11, 2014, Control

Rod G-3 misalignment occurred with

Shutdown Bank B group movement as

displayed by Individual Rod Position

Indication and Plant Instrument

Computer System. The proposed change

is to defer subsequent testing of the

Control Rod G-3 until repaired during

the next refuel outage (March 2016) or

forced outage long enough to repair the

Control Rod.

Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:

March 2,

2015 (80 FR 11236).

Expiration date of individual notice:

April 1, 2015 (public comments); May 1,

2015 (hearing requests).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 for

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

(DCPP), Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 72-

26 for Diablo Canyon Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),

San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request:

September 24, 2013, as supplemented

by letters dated December 18, 2013

(security-related), and May 15, 2014.

Publicly-available versions of the letters

dated September 24, 2013, and May 15,

2014, are in ADAMS under Accession

Nos. ML13268A398 and ML14135A379,

respectively.

Brief description of amendment request:

The proposed amendments would modify the licenses to reflect a

grant of section 161A of the Atomic

Energy Act, to authorize the licensee the

authority to possess and use certain

firearms, ammunition, and other devices

such as large-capacity ammunition

feeding devices, to implement the NRC-

approved security plan for DCPP, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, and the Diablo Canyon

ISFSI. Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:

February

18, 2015 (80 FR 8706).

Expiration date of individual notice:

March 20, 2015 (public comments);

April 19, 2015 (hearing requests).

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361, 50-362, and

72-41, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San

Diego County, California Date of amendment request:

August 28, 2013, as supplemented by letters

dated December 31, 2013, May 15, 2014,

and February 10, 2015. Publicly-

available versions are in ADAMS under

Accession Nos. ML13242A277, ML14007A496, ML14139A424, and ML15044A047, respectively.

Brief description of amendment request:

The licensee is requesting that the Commission grant it preemption

authority consistent with the

Commission's authority under section

161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended, to authorize the security

personnel of designated classes of

licensees to possess, use, and access

covered weapons for the physical

security of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, and

the Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation, notwithstanding Federal,

State, or local laws prohibiting such

possession or use. If the amendment

request is granted, the licenses would be

modified to reflect the Commission's

granting of section 161A preemption

authority.

Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:

February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8701).

Expiration date of individual notice:

March 20, 2015 (public comments);

April 20, 2015 (hearing requests).

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and

Combined Licenses and Final

Determination of No Significant

Hazards Consideration and

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent

Public Announcement or Emergency

Circumstances)

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 for the

amendment 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.

Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date

the amendment was needed, there was

not time for the Commission to publish,

for public comment before issuance, its

usual notice of consideration of

issuance of amendment, proposed no

significant hazards consideration

determination, and opportunity for a

hearing.

For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local

media to provide notice to the public in

the area surrounding a licensee's facility

of the licensee's application and of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00094Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13916 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration.

The Commission has provided a

reasonable opportunity for the public to

comment, using its best efforts to make

available to the public means of

communication for the public to

respond quickly, and in the case of

telephone comments, the comments

have been recorded or transcribed as

appropriate and the licensee has been

informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for

example, in derating or shutdown of a

nuclear power plant or in prevention of

either resumption of operation or of

increase in power output up to the

plant's licensed power level, the

Commission may not have had an

opportunity to provide for public

comment on its no significant hazards

consideration determination. In such

case, the license amendment has been

issued without opportunity for

comment. If there has been some time

for public comment but less than 30

days, the Commission may provide an

opportunity for public comment. If

comments have been requested, it is so

stated. In either event, the State has

been consulted by telephone whenever

possible.

Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the pendency before it of a request for

a hearing from any person, in advance

of the holding and completion of any

required hearing, where it has

determined that no significant hazards

consideration is involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The basis for this

determination is contained in the

documents related to this action.

Accordingly, the amendments have

been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 application for

amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to

the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on

the Internet at the NRC's Web site,

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

collections/cfr/.

If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the

PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-

4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to

pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

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 petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

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 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. Since the Commission has

made a final determination that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration, if a hearing is

requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any

hearing held would take place while the

amendment is in effect.

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 E-

Filing 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00095Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13917 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 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 NRC-

issued 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 E-

Submittal server are detailed in the

NRC's Guidance for Electronic

Submission, which is available on the

agency's public Web site at http://

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

submittals.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 Web-

based 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/e-

submittals.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/e-submittals.html.

A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are

submitted through the NRC's E-Filing

system. To be timely, an electronic

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of

a transmission, the E-Filing system

time-stamps the document and sends

the submitter an email notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

E-Filing system also distributes an email

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRC's Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore,

applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they

can obtain access to the document via

the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system

may seek assistance by contacting the

NRC Meta System Help Desk through

the Contact Us link located on the

NRC's public Web site at http://

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

submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC

Meta System Help Desk is available

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

Time, Monday through Friday,

excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file an

exemption request, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper

filing requesting authorization to

continue to submit documents in paper

format. Such filings must be submitted

by: (1) first class mail addressed to the

Office of the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,

express mail, or expedited delivery

service to the Office of the Secretary,

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking

and Adjudications Staff. Participants

filing a document in this manner are

responsible for serving the document on

all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited

delivery service upon depositing the

document with the provider of the

service. A presiding officer, having

granted an exemption request from

using E-Filing, may require a participant

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding

officer subsequently determines that the

reason for granting the exemption from

use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's

electronic hearing docket which is

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/,

unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission,

or the presiding officer. Participants are

requested not to include personal

privacy information, such as social

security numbers, home addresses, or

home phone numbers in their filings,

unless an NRC regulation or other law

requires submission of such

information. However, a request to

intervene will require including

information on local residence in order

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of

interest in the proceeding. With respect

to copyrighted works, except for limited

excerpts that serve the purpose of the

adjudicatory filings and would

constitute a Fair Use application,

participants are requested not to include

copyrighted materials in their

submission.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating

Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County,

Pennsylvania Date of amendment request:

February 12, 2015.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment extends the

implementation period for Amendment

No. 174, Leak Detection System

Setpoint and Allowable Value

Changes, which was issued on

December 29, 2014. Amendment No.

174 was effective as of the date of

issuance (

i.e., on December 29, 2014) and was required to be implemented

within 60 days (

i.e., by February 27, 2015). Amendment No. 177 extends the

implementation period for Amendment

No. 174 from 60 days to prior to startup

from the spring 2015 refueling outage.

Date of issuance:

February 25, 2015.

Effective date:

As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from the Spring 2015

Unit 2 Refueling Outage.

Amendment No.:

177. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15049A084;

documents related to this amendment

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00096Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13918 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-85:

Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License to

extend the implementation date of

Amendment No. 174, issued on

December 29, 2014, to prior to startup

from the Spring 2015 Unit 2 Refueling

Outage. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards

consideration (NSHC):

Yes. Public

notice of the proposed amendment was

published in The Pottstown Mercury,

located in in Pottstown, Pennsylvania,

on February 15, and February 16, 2015.

The notice provided an opportunity to

submit comments on the Commission's

proposed NSHC determination.

Comments were received.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent

circumstances, state consultation,

public comments, and final NSHC

determination are contained in a safety

evaluation dated February 25, 2015.

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:

Douglas A.

Broaddus.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN),

Units 1, 2, and 3, Respectively,

Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request:

February 12, 2015.

Brief description of amendment request:

The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5,

Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),

to add the date of a previously issued

NRC safety evaluation (SE) that stated it

was acceptable for the licensee to use

new analytical methods supporting the

use of ATRIUM 10XM (10XM) fuel. In

its letter dated February 12, 2015, the

licensee stated BFN, Unit 2, is entering

an outage on March 14, 2015, and is

scheduled to commence loading 10XM

fuel on March 17, 2015. Because the TSs

do not reference the aforementioned

NRC evaluation, the licensee would not

be able to issue a COLR for the Unit 2

transition cycle unless the notation to

the latest NRC SE is added. Therefore,

the licensee requested that NRC process

the license amendment request under

exigent circumstances in accordance

with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The NRC staff

determined that the provisions of 10

CFR 50.91(a)(6) were applicable for

processing the licensee's request under

exigent circumstances.

Date of issuance:

February 26, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

during the refueling outages in fall of

2016 for Unit 1, in spring of 2015 for

Unit 2, and in spring of 2016 for Unit

3. Amendment Nos.:

288, 313, and 272, which are available in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15051A337.

Documents related to these amendments

are listed in the SE enclosed with the

amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:

Amendments revised the TSs.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards

consideration (NSHC):

The public

notice was published in The

Huntsville Times, located in

Huntsville, Alabama, on February 18

and 20, 2015. The notice provided an

opportunity to submit comments on the

Commission's proposed NSHC

determination. No comments have been

received.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent

circumstances, state consultation, and

final NSHC determination are contained

in a safety evaluation dated February 26,

2015. Attorney for licensee:

General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A,

Knoxville, TN 37902.

NRC Branch Chief:

Shana R. Helton.

V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses and

Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the

Commission has issued the following

amendments. The Commission has

determined for each of these

amendments that the application

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

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

Commission's rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission's rules and regulations in

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendment.

A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating

license or combined license, as

applicable, proposed no significant

hazards consideration determination,

and opportunity for a hearing in

connection with these actions, was

published in the Federal Register as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these

amendments satisfy the criteria for

categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for these

amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment

under the special circumstances

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has

made a determination based on that

assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for

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

the Commission's related letter, Safety

Evaluation and/or Environmental

Assessment as indicated. All of these

items can be accessed as described in

the Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments section of this

document.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of application for amendment:

December 12, 2012, as supplemented by

letters dated February 21, September 30,

October 24, and December 2, 2013;

April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14,

November 4, and December 18, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment authorizes the transition of

the Palisades Nuclear Plant fire

protection program to a risk-informed,

performance-based program based on

National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) 805, in accordance with 10 CFR

50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows the use of

performance-based methods such as fire

modeling and risk-informed methods

such as fire probabilistic risk assessment

to demonstrate compliance with the

nuclear safety performance criteria.

Date of issuance:

February 27, 2015.

Effective date:

As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented by six months from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.:

254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15007A191;

documents related to this amendment

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendment.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20:

Amendment revised the

Renewed Facility Operating License and

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11148). The supplements dated April 2,

May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4,

and December 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

. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00097Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13919 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27,

2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1,

Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request:

March 26, 2013, as supplemented by letters

dated November 14, 2013, and August

18, October 22, and December 5, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment revised the Technical

Specification (TS) requirements for end

states associated with the

implementation of the NRC-approved

Topical Report BAW-2441-A, Revision

2, Risk-Informed Justification for LCO

End-State Changes, as well as Required

Actions revised by a specific Note in TS

Task Force (TSTF) change traveler

TSTF-431, Revision 3, Change in

Technical Specifications End States

(BAW-2441).

Date of issuance:

March 3, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment No.:

253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15023A147;

documents related to this amendment

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendment.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51:

Amendment revised the

TSs/license.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44170).

The supplemental letters dated

November 14, 2013, and August 19,

October 22, 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 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 March 3, 2015.

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:

December 9, 2013, as supplemented by

letters dated October 1, 2014, and

December 17, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment revised the Technical

Specifications for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 to improve

clarity, correct administrative and

typographical errors, or establish

consistency with NUREG-1432,

Standard Technical Specifications-

Combustion Engineering Plants,

Revision 4.0.

Date of issuance:

February 23, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 90 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.:

242. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15005A126;

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 and Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45475).

The supplements dated October 1, 2014,

and December 17, 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 February 23,

2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie

County, Florida Date of amendment request:

February 26, 2014, as supplemented by letters

dated May 29 and July 25, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendments revised the Technical

Specifications (TSs), modifying

requirements for mode change

limitations in Limiting Condition for

Operation 3.0.4 and Surveillance

Requirement (SR) 4.0.4 to adopt the

provisions of Industry/TS Task Force

(TSTF)-359, Rev. 9, Increase

Flexibility in MODE Restraints. The

language of SR 4.0.1 is revised to

conform to the language of NUREG-

1432, Standard Technical

Specifications for Combustion

Engineering Plants, to resolve language

incongruences and ensure conservative

implementation of the TSTF-359, Rev.

9, changes.

Date of issuance:

February 27, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

220 and 170. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS

under Accession No. ML14343A918;

documents related to these amendments

are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)

enclosed with the amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised

the Renewed Facility Operating

Licenses and TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30187).

The supplements dated May 29 and July

25, 2014, provided additional

information that clarified the

application, did not expand the scope of

the application as originally noticed,

and did not change the staff's original

proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register

. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a SE

dated February 27, 2015.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant,

Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas Date of amendment request:

July 1, 2014. Brief description of amendment:

The amendments revised Technical

Specification 3.8.1, AC [Alternating

Current] Sources-Operating, to extend

on a one-time basis the Completion

Time (CT) of Required Action A.3,

Restore required offsite circuit to

OPERABLE status, from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 14

days. The CT extension from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />

to 14 days will be used while

completing the plant modification to

install alternate startup transformer

XST1A and will expire on March 31,

2017. Date of issuance:

February 24, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within [licensee requested number] days

from the date of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

Unit 1-164; Unit 2-164. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15008A133; documents related to

these amendments are listed in the

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the

amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:

The amendments

revised the Facility Operating Licenses

and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64226). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00098Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13920 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit

1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:

April 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated

January 27, 2015.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment revised Technical

Specification section 3.2, Table 3-5, for

Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to add

a new surveillance requirement to verify

the correct position of the valves

required to restrict flow in the high

pressure safety injection system.

Date of issuance:

February 20, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment No.:

280. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15015A413;

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:

August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49108). The supplemental letter dated

January 27, 2015, 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 February 20,

2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda

County, Texas Date of amendment request:

August 14, 2014, as supplemented by letter

dated December 18, 2014.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments revised Administrative

Controls Technical Specification (TS)

6.9.1.6, Core Operating Limits Report

(COLR), with respect to the analytical

methods used to determine the core

operating limits.

Date of issuance:

February 27, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

Unit 1-204; Unit 2-192. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15049A129; documents related to

these amendments are listed in the

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the

amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80:

The amendments

revised the Facility Operating Licenses

and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

December 2, 2014 (79 FR 71455). The supplemental letter dated

December 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 amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 27,

2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michele G. Evans,

Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2015-05994 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding

an Information Collection Request (ICR)

to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). Our

ICR describes the information we seek

to collect from the public. Review and

approval by OIRA ensures that we

impose appropriate paperwork burdens.

The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to

determine (1) the practical utility of the

collection; (2) the accuracy of the

estimated burden of the collection; (3)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information that is the

subject of collection; and (4) ways to

minimize the burden of collections on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the

ICR. For proper consideration of your

comments, it is best if the RRB and

OIRA receive them within 30 days of

the publication date.

Title and Purpose of information collection:

Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum; OMB 3220-0083.

Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the total monthly

benefits payable to a railroad employee

and his/her family are guaranteed to be

no less than the amount which would

be payable if the employee's railroad

service had been covered by the Social

Security Act. This is referred to as the

Social Security Overall Minimum

Guarantee, which is prescribed in 20

CFR 229. To administer this provision,

the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)

requires information about a retired

employee's spouse and child(ren) who

would not be eligible for benefits under

the RRA but would be eligible for

benefits under the Social Security Act if

the employee's railroad service had

been covered by that Act. The RRB

obtains the required information by the

use of Forms G-319, Statement

Regarding Family and Earnings for

Special Guaranty Computation, and G-

320, Student Questionnaire for Special

Guaranty Computation. One response is

required of each respondent.

Completion is required to obtain or

retain benefits.

Previous Requests for Comments:

The RRB has already published the initial

60-day notice (80 FR 1679 on January

13, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2). That request elicited no

comments.

Information Collection Request (ICR)

Title: Statement Regarding Contributions and Support of Children.

Title: Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum.

OMB Control Number:

3220-0083.

Forms submitted:

G-319 and G-320.

Type of request:

Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Affected public:

Individuals or Households.

Abstract:

Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act, the total

monthly benefits payable to a railroad

employee and his/her family are

guaranteed to be no less than the

amount which would be payable if the

employee's railroad service had been

covered by the Social Security Act.

Changes proposed:

The RRB proposes non-burden impacting editorial changes

to Forms G-319 and G-320.

The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00099Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13902 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices under part 110. The NRC Form 7 application will be reviewed by the NRC

and by the Executive Branch, and if

applicable statutory, regulatory, and

policy considerations are satisfied, the

NRC will issue an export, import,

amendment or renewal license.

III. Specific Requests for Comments Submit, by May 18, 2015, comments that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the

information have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents

be minimized, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology?

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.

[FR Doc. 2015-06014 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0001]

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATES: March 16, 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, 2015. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

Week of March 16, 2015 There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 16, 2015.

Week of March 23, 2015-Tentative

Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1) 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1)

Friday, March 27, 2015

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed-Ex. 1) Week of March 30, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 30, 2015.

Week of April 6, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 6, 2015.

Week of April 13, 2015-Tentative

Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (Public Meeting) (Contact:

Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-415-5775)

This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-http://www.nrc.gov/.

Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control

Program Directors (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-

415-5775)

This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-http://www.nrc.gov/.

Week of April 20, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 20, 2015.

• * * *

• The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify

the status of meetings, contact Glenn

Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at

Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov.

• * * *

• Additional Information

1. By a vote of 3-0 on March 9, 2015, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the

Commission's rules that an Affirmation

Session for Entergy Nuclear Operations,

Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Units 2 and 3)-Petitions for Review of

LBP-13-13 (Partial Initial Decision) and

Related Decisions (Appeals of Board

Decisions Related to Contentions NUS-

8 CW-EC-3) be held with less than one

week notice to the public. The meeting

was held on March 9, 2015.

2. The Affirmation Session for Omaha Public Power District (Fort Calhoun

Station, Unit 1), Petition to Intervene

and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing

by Sierra Club (Apr. 23, 2014),

previously scheduled for March 5, 2015,

was held on March 9, 2015.

3. The meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, scheduled for March 5, 2015, was

postponed.

• * * *

• The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/

public-meetings/schedule.html.

• * * *

• The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to

participate in these public meetings, or

need this meeting notice or the

transcript or other information from the

public meetings in another format (

e.g.

braille, large print), please notify

Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability

Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, by

videophone at 240-428-3217, or by

email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@

nrc.gov.

Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be

made on a case-by-case basis.

• * * *

• Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically.

If you would like to be added to the

distribution, please contact the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Office of the

Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-

415-1969), or email

Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.

Dated: March 13, 2015.

Glenn Ellmers, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-06188 Filed 3-13-15; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590-01--P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0055]

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 February 19,

2015 to March 4, 2015. The last VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00081Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13903 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices biweekly notice was published on March 3, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by April 16, 2015. A request for a hearing must

be filed by May 18, 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-2015-0055. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol

Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463;

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

• Mail comments to:

Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop:

OWFN-12-H08, 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 SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT

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. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION

I. Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0055 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this

action. You may obtain publicly-

available 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-2015-0055.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

(ADAMS):

You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the

ADAMS Public Documents collection at

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

adams.html.

To begin the search, select

ADAMS Public Documents

and then

select

Begin Web-based ADAMS

Search. For problems with ADAMS,

please contact the NRC's Public

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at

1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

The ADAMS accession number for each

document referenced (if it is available in

ADAMS) is provided the first time that

it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

• NRC's PDR:

You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0055, facility name, unit number(s),

application date, and subject in your

comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that

you do not want to be publicly

disclosed in your comment submission.

The NRC posts all comment

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

The NRC does not routinely edit

comment submissions to remove

identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for

submission to the NRC, then you should

inform those persons not to include

identifying or contact information that

they do not want to be publicly

disclosed in their comment submission.

Your request should state that the NRC

does not routinely edit comment

submissions to remove such information

before making the comment

submissions available to the public or

entering the comment submissions into

ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Combined Licenses and

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission's regulations in

§50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment would

not (1) involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated, or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the

expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license

amendment before expiration of the 60-

day period provided that its final

determination is that the amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration. In addition, the

Commission may issue the amendment

prior to the expiration of the 30-day

comment period should circumstances

change during the 30-day comment

period such that failure to act in a

timely way would result, for example in

derating or shutdown of the facility.

Should the Commission take action

prior to the expiration of either the

comment period or the notice period, it

will publish in the Federal Register a

notice of issuance. Should the

Commission make a final No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

any hearing will take place after

issuance. The Commission expects that

the need to take this action will occur

very infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s)

whose interest may be affected by this

action may file a request for a hearing

and a petition to intervene with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license or

combined license. Requests for a

hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene shall be filed in accordance

with the Commission's Agency Rules

of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR

part 2. Interested person(s) should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,

which is available at the NRC's PDR,

located at One White Flint North, Room

O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The

NRC's regulations are accessible

electronically from the NRC Library on

the NRC's Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-

collections/cfr/.

If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed

by the above date, the Commission or a

presiding officer designated by the

Commission or by the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will

rule on the request and/or petition; and

the Secretary or the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of a hearing or an appropriate

order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00082Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13904 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 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 E-

Filing 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 NRC-

issued 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 E-

Submittal server are detailed in the

NRC's Guidance for Electronic

Submission, which is available on the

agency's public Web site at http://

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

submittals.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 Web-

based 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/e-

submittals.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/e-submittals.html.

A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are

submitted through the NRC's E-Filing

system. To be timely, an electronic

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of

a transmission, the E-Filing system

time-stamps the document and sends

the submitter an email notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

E-Filing system also distributes an email

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRC's Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore,

applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they

can obtain access to the document via

the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the

NRC Meta System Help Desk through

the Contact Us link located on the

NRC's public Web site at http://

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

submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC

Meta System Help Desk is available VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00083Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13905 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,

excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file an

exemption request, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper

filing requesting authorization to

continue to submit documents in paper

format. Such filings must be submitted

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the

Office of the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,

express mail, or expedited delivery

service to the Office of the Secretary,

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking

and Adjudications Staff. Participants

filing a document in this manner are

responsible for serving the document on

all other participants. Filing is

considered complete by first-class mail

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or

by courier, express mail, or expedited

delivery service upon depositing the

document with the provider of the

service. A presiding officer, having

granted an exemption request from

using E-Filing, may require a participant

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding

officer subsequently determines that the

reason for granting the exemption from

use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's

electronic hearing docket which is

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/,

unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission,

or the presiding officer. Participants are

requested not to include personal

privacy information, such as social

security numbers, home addresses, or

home phone numbers in their filings,

unless an NRC regulation or other law

requires submission of such

information. However, a request to

intervene will require including

information on local residence in order

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of

interest in the proceeding. With respect

to copyrighted works, except for limited

excerpts that serve the purpose of the

adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,

participants are requested not to include

copyrighted materials in their

submission.

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the

date of publication of this notice.

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave

to intervene, and motions for leave to

file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will

not be entertained absent a

determination by the presiding officer

that the filing demonstrates good cause

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR

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

For further details with respect to these license amendment applications,

see the application for amendment

which is available for public inspection

in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For

additional direction on accessing

information related to this document,

see the Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments section of this

document.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al.,

Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit

3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3),

Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request:

November 7, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14321A450.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would reflect the

transfer of ownership, held by eight

minority co-owners, in CR-3 to DEF.

The transfer of ownership will take

place pursuant to the Settlement,

Release and Acquisition Agreement,

dated September 26, 2014, wherein DEF

will purchase the 6.52 percent

combined ownership share in CR-3

held by these minority co-owners,

leaving DEF and Seminole Electric

Cooperative, Inc., as the remaining

licensees for CR-3.

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 of any

accident previously evaluated because no

accident initiators or assumptions are

affected. The proposed license transfers are

administrative in nature and have no direct

effect on any plant system, plant personnel

qualifications, or the operation and

maintenance of CR-3.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated

because no new accident initiators or

assumptions are introduced by the proposed

changes. The proposed license transfers are administrative in nature and have no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel

qualifications, or operation and maintenance

of CR-3.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety

because the proposed changes do not involve

changes to the initial conditions contributing

to accident severity or consequences, or

reduce response or mitigation capabilities.

The proposed license transfers are

administrative in nature and have no direct

effect on any plant system, plant personnel

qualifications, or operation and maintenance

of CR-3.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to

determine that the amendment request

involves no significant hazards

consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC

28202. NRC Branch Chief:

Douglas A.

Broaddus.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point

Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester

County, New York Date of amendment request:

December 9, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14353A015.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would revise Technical

Specification 5.5.14, Containment

Leakage Rate Testing Program, to

extend the frequency of the

Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test

or Type A Test from once every 10 years

to once every 15 years on a permanent

basis. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed amendment involves changes to the IP2 [Indian Point Unit No. 2]

containment leakage rate testing program.

The proposed amendment does not involve

a physical change to the plant or a change in

the manner in which the plant is operated or

controlled. The primary containment

function is to provide an essentially leak

tight barrier against the uncontrolled release

of radioactivity to the environment for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00084Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13906 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices postulated accidents. As such, the containment itself 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.

Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased by the proposed

amendment.

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision

2A, for development of the IP2 performance-

based testing program for the Type A testing.

Implementation of these guidelines continues

to provide adequate assurance that during

design basis accidents, the primary

containment and its components would limit

leakage rates to less than the values assumed

in the plant safety analyses. The potential

consequences of extending the ILRT

[integrated leak rate test] interval to 15 years

have been evaluated by analyzing the

resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk

in terms of person-rem per year within 50

miles resulting from design basis accidents

was estimated to be acceptably small and

determined to be within the guidelines

published in RG 1.174. Additionally, the

proposed change maintains defense-in-depth

by preserving a reasonable balance among

prevention of core damage, prevention of

containment failure, and consequence

mitigation. Entergy has determined that the increase in conditional containment failure

probability due to the proposed change

would be very small. Therefore, it is

concluded that the proposed amendment

does not significantly increase the

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision

2A, for the development of the IP2

performance-based leakage testing program,

and establishes a 15-year interval for the

performance of the containment ILRT. 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.

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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A, for the development of the IP2

performance-based leakage testing program,

and establishes a 15-year interval for the

performance of the containment ILRT. This

amendment does not alter the manner in

which safety limits, limiting safety system

setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation

are determined. The specific requirements

and conditions of the containment leakage

rate testing program, as defined in the TS

[technical specifications], ensure that the

degree of primary containment structural

integrity and leak-tightness that is considered

in the plant's safety analysis is maintained.

The overall containment leakage rate limit

specified by the TS is maintained, and the

Type A containment leakage tests would be

performed at the frequencies established in

accordance with the NRC-accepted

guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A with no

change to the 60 month frequencies of Type B, and Type C tests.

Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve

to provide a high degree of assurance that the

containment would not degrade in a manner

that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk

assessment using the current IP2 PSA

[probabilistic safety assessment] model

concluded that extending the ILRT test

interval from ten years to 15 years results in

a very small change to the risk profile.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy

Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton

Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.

NRC Branch Chief:

Benjamin G.

Beasley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego

County, New York Date of amendment request:

November 19, 2014. A publicly-

available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML14329A353.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would

modify the Nine Mile Point (NMP)

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical

Specifications (TS) by relocating

specific surveillance frequencies to a

licensee-controlled program with the

adoption of Technical Specification

Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3,

Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to

Licensee Control-Risk Informed

Technical Specification Task Force

(RITSTF) Initiative 5b. The licensee's

application dated November 19, 2014, , section 2.2, has identified

some variations or deviations from the

TSTF-425. Additionally, the change

would add a new program, the

Surveillance Frequency Control

Program, to TS section 5,

Administrative Controls. The NRC staff

issued a notice of opportunity for

comment in the Federal Register on December 5, 2008, 73 FR 74202, on

possible amendments to revise the plant

specific TS, to Relocate Surveillance

Frequencies to Licensee Control-

RITSTF Initiative 5b. The Notice

included a model safety evaluation and

model No Significant Hazards

Consideration (NSHC) determination,

using the consolidated line-item

improvement process. The NRC staff

subsequently issued a notice of

availability of the models for referencing

in license amendment applications in

the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The licensee affirmed the

applicability of the model NSHC

determination in its application dated

November 19, 2014, which is presented

below. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for periodic

surveillance requirements to licensee control

under a new Surveillance Frequency Control

Program (SFCP). Surveillance frequencies are

not an initiator to any accident previously

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any

accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased. The systems and

components required by the technical

specifications for which the surveillance

frequencies are relocated are still required to

be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for

the surveillance requirements, and be

capable of performing any mitigation

function assumed in the accident analysis.

As a result, the consequences of any accident

previously evaluated are not significantly

increased.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed changes. The changes

do not involve a physical alteration of the

plant (i.e., no new or different type of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00085Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13907 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant

operation. In addition, the changes do not

impose any new or different requirements.

The changes do not alter assumptions made

in the safety analysis. The proposed changes

are consistent with the safety analysis

assumptions and current plant operating

practice.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems,

structures, and components (SSCs), specified

in applicable codes and standards (or

alternatives approved for use by the NRC)

will continue to be met as described in the

plant licensing basis (including the final

safety analysis report and bases to TS), since

these are not affected by changes to the

surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is

no impact to safety analysis acceptance

criteria as described in plant licensing basis.

To evaluate a change in the relocated

surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform

a probabilistic risk evaluation using the

guidance contained in NRC approved NEI

04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS

SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology

provides reasonable acceptance guidelines

and methods for evaluating the risk increase

of proposed changes to surveillance

frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide

1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

J. Bradley Fewell, Senior Vice President,

Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General

Counsel, Exelon Generation Company,

LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville,

IL 60555.

NRC Branch Chief:

Benjamin G.

Beasley.

Exelon Generation Company LLC (),

Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,

Will County, Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle

County, Illinois Date of amendment request:

December 18, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14352A204.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would increase the voltage limit for the diesel

generator (DG) full load rejection test

specified by technical specification (TS)

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10.

Additionally, the proposed amendment

would add Note 3 to TS SR 3.8.1.10 for

alignment with the Standard Technical

Specifications documented in NUREG-

1431, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession

No. ML12100A222).

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: EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has evaluated the proposed change for Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using

the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has

determined that the proposed change does

not involve a significant hazards

consideration. The following information is

provided to support a finding of no

significant hazards consideration.

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The DGs design function is to mitigate an accident and there are no analyzed scenarios

where the DGs are initiators of any

previously evaluated accident. Since DGs do

not initiate accidents, this change does not

increase the probability of occurrence of a

previously evaluated accident. The proposed

change to the testing approach of the DGs is

consistent with the original design of the

DGs. The proposed change is in accordance

with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.9 Revision 3,

and this change to the testing approach does

not impact the DGs ability to mitigate

accidents. The DGs will continue to operate

within the parameters and conditions

assumed within the accident analysis. This

change does not result in an increase in the

likelihood of malfunction of the DGs or their

supported equipment. Since the DGs will

continue to perform its required function,

there is no increase in the consequences of

previously evaluated accidents.

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 amendment does not change the DGs operation or ability to perform its

design function. The proposed change to TS

SR 3.8.1.10 at increased voltage will ensure

the DGs ability to perform at rated power

factor while meeting its requirements. The

change to TS SR 3.8.1.10 does not result in

DG operation that would create a new failure

mode of the DGs that could create a new

initiator of an accident. This is because the

DGs ability to perform its design function is

maintained in the same manner as originally designed. The proposed change does not change the single failure capabilities of the

electrical power system or create a potential

for loss of power since the design operation

of the DGs is maintained.

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 margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems,

and components, the parameters within

which the plant is operated, and the

setpoints for the actuation of equipment

relied upon to respond to an event. The

proposed change does not modify the safety

limits or setpoints at which protective

actions are initiated. The proposed change

increases the voltage limit for the DG full

load rejection test which results in new test

acceptance criterion that is more restrictive

than the existing acceptance criteria. The

proposed change ensures the availability and

operability of safety-related DGs.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. Based on the above evaluation, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment

presents no significant hazards consideration

under the standards set forth in 10 CFR

50.92, paragraph (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

requested amendments involve no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Bradley J.

Fewell, Associate General Counsel,

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road,

Warrenville, IL 60555.

NRC Branch Chief:

Travis L. Tate.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry

Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1,

Perry, Ohio Date of amendment request:

November 24, 2014. A publicly-

available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML14328A665.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment is intended to

revise the battery capacity testing surveillance requirements in the

technical specifications to reflect test

requirements when the battery is near

end of life.

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: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00086Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13908 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed amendment does not change the design function of the Class 1 E

divisional battery systems and does not

change the way the plant is maintained or

operated when performing battery

surveillance testing. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident

mitigating feature or increase the likelihood

of malfunction for plant structures, systems

and components.

The proposed amendment does not affect the operability requirements of the Class 1 E

divisional battery systems. Verification of

operating the plant within prescribed limits

will continue to be performed, as currently

required. Compliance with and continued

verification of the prescribed limits support

the capability of the Class 1 E divisional

battery systems to perform their required

design functions during all plant operating,

accident, and station blackout conditions,

consistent with the plant safety analyses.

The proposed amendment will not change any of the analyses associated with the PNPP

Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15

accidents because plant operation, plant

structures, systems, components, accident

initiators, and accident mitigation functions

remain unchanged.

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 change the design function of the Class 1 E

divisional battery systems, and does not

change the way the plant is operated or

maintained. The proposed amendment does

not create a credible failure mechanism,

malfunction or accident initiator not already

considered in the design and licensing basis.

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.

Safety margins are applied to design and licensing basis functions and to the

controlling values of parameters to account

for various uncertainties and to avoid

exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The

proposed amendment does not involve a

physical change to the plant, does not change

methods of plant operation within prescribed

limits, or affect design and licensing basis

functions or controlling values of parameters

for plant systems, structures, and

components.

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:

David W.

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy

Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.

NRC Branch Chief:

Travis L. Tate.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie

County, Florida Date of amendment request:

August 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.

ML14225A630).

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would revise the

Technical Specifications to add a short

Allowed Outage Time to restore an

inoperable system for conditions under

which the existing specifications require

a plant shutdown. The proposed

amendment is consistent with an NRC-

approved change identified as Technical

Specifications Task Force (TSTF)

Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, Revise

or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into

LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]

3.0.3-RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]

Initiatives 6b & 6c (see 78 FR 32476,

May 30, 2013). The Allowed Outage

Time would be added to specifications

governing the boron injection flow paths

of the reactivity control systems,

pressurizer heaters, containment spray

trains, shield building ventilation

systems, and control room emergency

air cleanup systems.

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 reproduced

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change provides a short Allowed Outage Time to restore an

inoperable system for conditions under

which the existing Technical Specifications

require a plant shutdown to begin within one

hour in accordance with Limiting Condition

for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3. Entering into

Technical Specification Actions is not an

initiator of any accident previously

evaluated. As a result, the probability of an

accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased. The consequences of

any accident previously evaluated that may

occur during the proposed Allowed Outage

Times are no different from the consequences

of the same accident during the existing one-

hour allowance. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously

evaluated are not significantly increased.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

No new or different accidents [would]

result from utilizing the proposed change.

The changes [to the TSs] do not involve a

physical alteration of the plant (

i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be

installed) or a change in the methods

governing normal plant operation. In

addition, the changes do not impose any new

or different requirements. The changes do not

alter assumptions made in [any] safety

analysis.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change increases the time the plant may operate without the ability to

perform an assumed safety function. The

analyses in [the NRC-approved topical

report] WCAP-16125-NP-A, Justification

for Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected

Technical Specifications for Conditions

Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,

Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that

there is an acceptably small increase in risk

due to a limited period of continued

operation in these conditions and that this

risk is balanced by avoiding the risks

associated with a plant shutdown. As a

result, the change to the margin of safety

provided by requiring a plant shutdown

within one hour is not significant.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and 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 Company, 700

Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno

Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Branch Chief:

Shana R. Helton.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie

County, Florida Date of amendment request:

December 5, 2014 (ADAMS Accession

No. ML14353A016).

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment will modify

the Technical Specification (TS) VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00087Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13909 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices requirements related to Completion Times for Required Actions to provide

the option to calculate longer, risk-

informed Completion Times. The

proposed amendment will also add a

new program, the Risk Informed

Completion Time Program, to TS

section 6.0, Administrative Controls.

The methodology for using the Risk

Informed Completion Time Program is

described in Nuclear Energy Institute

topical report NEI 06-09, Risk-

Informed Technical Specifications

Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical

Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines,

Revision 0-A, which was approved by

the NRC on May 17, 2007. The proposed

amendment is consistent with the NRC-

approved industry-proposed Technical

Specification Task Force-505, Revision

1, Provide Risk-Informed Extended

Completion Times-RITSTF Initiative

4b. 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 reproduced

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided the

associated risk is assessed and managed in

accordance with the NRC[-]approved Risk

Informed Completion Time Program. The

proposed change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability of an

accident previously evaluated because the

change involves no change to the plant or its

modes of operation. The proposed change

does not increase the consequences of an

accident because the design-basis mitigation

function of the affected systems is not

changed and the consequences of an accident

[occurring] during the extended Completion

Time are no different from those [occurring]

during the existing Completion Time.

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 does not change the design, configuration, or method of operation

of the plant. The proposed change does not

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no

new or different kind of equipment will be

installed).

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk is assessed and managed in accordance with

the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed

Completion Time Program. The proposed

change implements a risk-informed

configuration management program to assure

that adequate margins of safety are

maintained. Application of these new

specifications and the configuration

management program considers cumulative

effects of multiple systems or components

being out of service and does so more

effectively than the current TS.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and 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 Company, 700

Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno

Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Branch Chief:

Shana R. Helton.

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:

December 17, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14356A022.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would amend

the Appendix A technical specifications

to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-58

and DPR-74, to modify the notes to TS

3.8.1, AC Sources-Operating, to

allow surveillance testing of the onsite

standby emergency diesel generators

(DGs) during modes in which it is

currently prohibited. Specifically, the

license amendment request proposes

removing the mode restrictions for the

following Surveillance Requirements

(SRs): 3.8.1.10 (DG single largest load

rejection test), 3.8.1.11 (DG full load

rejection test), and 3.8.1.15 (DG

endurance run).

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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the proposed changes. In

addition, the DGs and their associated

emergency loads are accident mitigating features. As such, testing of the DGs themselves is not associated with any

potential accident-initiating mechanism.

Therefore, there will be no significant impact on any accident probabilities by the

approval of the requested changes.

The changes include an increase in the time that a DG under test will be paralleled

to the grid while the unit is in Modes 1 or

2. As such, the ability of the tested DG to

respond to a DBA [design-basis accident]

could be minimally adversely impacted by

the proposed changes. However, the impacts

are not considered significant based, in part,

on the ability of the remaining DG to mitigate

a DBA or provide safe shutdown. Experience

shows that testing for these SRs typically

does not perturb the electrical distribution

system. In addition, operating experience

supports the conclusion that the proposed

changes do not involve any significant increases in the likelihood of a safety-related

bus blackout or damage to plant loads.

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 capability to synchronize a DG to the offsite source (via the associated plant bus)

and test the DG in such a configuration is a

design feature of the DGs, including the test

mode override in response to a safety

injection signal. Paralleling the DG for longer

periods of time during plant operation may

slightly increase the probability of incurring

an adverse effect from the offsite source, but

this increase in probability is judged to be

still quite small and such a possibility is not

a new or previously unrecognized

consideration.

The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation and does not

involve physical modification to the plant.

The change does not introduce new accident

initiators or impact assumptions made in the

safety analysis.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit, so there

is no significant reduction in the margin of

safety. The margin of safety is related to the

confidence in the ability of the fission

product barriers to perform their design

functions during and following an accident

situation. These barriers include the fuel

cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the

containment system. The proposed changes

do not directly affect these barriers, nor do

they involve any significantly adverse impact

on the DGs which serve to support these

barriers in the event of an accident

concurrent with a LOOP [loss of offsight

power]. The proposed changes to the testing

requirements for the plant DGs do not affect

the OPERABILITY requirements for the DGs, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00088Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13910 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices as verification of such OPERABILITY will continue to be performed as required (except

during different allowed modes). The

changes have an insignificant impact on DG

availability, as the DGs remain available to

perform their required function of providing

emergency power to plant equipment that

supports or constitutes the fission product

barriers. Only one DG is to be tested at a

time, so that the remaining DG will be

available to safety shut down the plant if

required. Consequently, performance of the

fission product barriers will not be impacted

by implementation of the proposed

amendment.

In addition, the proposed changes involve no changes to setpoints or limits established

or assumed by the accident analysis.

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 requests involve no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Robert B.

Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One

Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.

NRC Branch Chief:

David L. Pelton.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket

No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:

January 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15021A127.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise

the Technical Specifications (TSs) to

add a limiting condition for operation,

applicability, required actions,

completion times, and surveillance

requirements for the residual heat

removal (RHR) containment spray

system consistent with the guidance in

NUREG-1433, Revision 4, Standard

Technical Specifications General

Electric BWR [Boiling Water Reactor]/4

Plants, dated April 2012 (ADAMS

Accession No. ML12104A192). New TS

section 3.6.1.9, Residual Heat Removal

(RHR) Containment Spray, would be

added to reflect the reliance on

containment spray to maintain the

drywell within design temperature

limits during a small steam line break.

In addition, the Drywell Pressure-

High function that serves as an

interlock permissive to allow RHR

containment spray mode alignment

would be relocated from the Technical

Requirements Manual (TRM) to TS

3.3.5.1, Emergency Core Cooling

System (ECCS) Instrumentation.

The requirements for the RHR containment spray function and

Drywell Pressure-High function are

currently contained in TRM sections

T3.6.1, RHR Containment Spray, and

T3.3.2, ECCS and Reactor Core

Isolation Cooling Instrumentation,

respectively. These TRM sections

established specific guidance and

criteria related to the applicability,

operation, and testing for the RHR

containment spray system. The TRM

requirements for the RHR containment

spray system would be removed once

the TS requirements are approved.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does

not introduce new equipment or new

equipment operating modes, nor do the

proposed changes alter existing system

relationships. The proposed change does not

affect plant operation, design function, or any

analysis that verifies the capability of a

structure, system, or component (SSC) to

perform a design function. There are no

changes or modifications to the RHR system.

The RHR system will continue to function as

designed in all modes of operation, including the Containment Spray function. There are

no significant changes to procedures or

training related to the operation of the

Containment Spray function. Primary

containment integrity is not adversely

impacted and radiological consequences

from the accidents analyzed in the Updated

Safety Analysis Report (USAR) are not

increased. Containment parameters are not

increased beyond those previously evaluated

and the potential for failure of the

containment is not increased.

There is no adverse impact on systems designed to mitigate the consequences of

accidents. The proposed change does not

increase system or component pressures,

temperatures, and flowrates for systems

designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the

consequences of an accident. Since these

conditions do not change, the likelihood of

failure of SSC is not increased.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does

not alter the design function or operation of

any SSC. The Containment system will

continue to function as designed in all modes

of operation, including RHR Containment Spray function. There is no new system component being installed, no new

construction, and no performance of a new

test or maintenance function. The proposed

TS change does not create the possibility of

a new credible failure mechanism or

malfunction. The proposed change does not

modify the design function or operation of

any SSC. The proposed change does not

introduce new accident initiators. Primary

containment integrity is not adversely

impacted and radiological consequences

from the accident analyzed in the USAR are

not increased. Containment parameters are

not increased beyond those previously

evaluated and the potential for failure of the

containment is not increased. The proposed

change does not increase system or

component pressures, temperatures, and

flowrates for systems designed to prevent

accidents or mitigate the consequences of an

accident. Since these conditions do not

change, the likelihood of failure of an SSC is

not increased.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change does not increase system or component pressures,

temperatures, and flowrates for systems

designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the

consequences of an accident. Containment

parameters are not increased beyond those

previously evaluated and the potential for

failure of the containment is not increased.

The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS is

needed in order to reflect the current safety

function of Containment Spray related to the

small steam line break accident. The

proposed change does not exceed or alter a

design basis or a safety limit parameter that

is described in the USAR.

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. John C.

McClure, Nebraska Public Power

District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus,

NE 68602-0499.

Acting NRC Branch Chief:

Eric R. Oesterle.

Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,

Minnesota Date of amendment request:

February 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters

dated June 25, 2013; September 15, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00089Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13911 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 2014; and February 26, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under

Accession Nos. ML13053A199,

ML13178A024, ML14258A089, and

ML15057A480, respectively.

Brief description of amendment request:

The proposed amendments would remove the technical

specification (TS) 3.5.3 ECCS

[Emergency Core Cooling System]-

Shutdown, Limiting Condition for

Operation (LCO) Note 1 to eliminate

information to the plant operators that

could cause non-conservative operation,

and would revise the LCO Applicability

statement to apply to all of Mode 4.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which the Commission

previously issued in the Federal Register on August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51229). The licensee revised its analysis

of the issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below, to consider expansion of the

scope of the amendments by revising

the LCO Applicability statement to

include all of Mode 4.

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification for

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by

removing the LCO Note which allows the

RHR [residual heat removal] subsystem to be

considered operable for ECCS when aligned

for shutdown cooling and revising the

Applicability statement to include all of

Mode 4. These changes will require one train

of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation

throughout Mode 4.

The proposed changes do not affect the ECCS and RHR subsystem design, the

interfaces between the RHR subsystem and

other plant systems' operating functions, or

the reliability of the RHR subsystem. The

proposed changes do not change or impact

the initiators and assumptions of the

analyzed accidents. Therefore, the ECCS and

RHR subsystems will be capable of

performing their accident mitigation

functions, and the proposed TS changes do

not involve an increase in the probability of

an accident.

The proposed TS changes will require that one train of RHR is aligned for ECCS

operation during Mode 4 which assures that

one train of ECCS is operable to mitigate the

consequences of a loss of coolant accident.

Thus the proposed TS changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

consequences of an accident.

Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification for

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by

removing the LCO Note which allows the

RHR subsystem to be considered operable for

ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling

and revising the Applicability statement to

include all of Mode 4. These changes will

require one train of RHR to be aligned for

ECCS operation throughout Mode 4.

The proposed Technical Specification changes involve changes to when system

trains are operated, but they do not change

any system functions or maintenance

activities. The changes do not involve

physical alteration of the plant, that is, no

new or different type of equipment will be

installed. The changes do not alter

assumptions made in the safety analyses but

ensure that one train of ECCS is operable to

mitigate the consequences of a loss of coolant

accident. These changes do not create new

failure modes or mechanisms which are not

identifiable during testing and no new

accident precursors are generated.

Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do 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.

This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification [TS] for

ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by

removing the LCO Note which allows the

RHR subsystem to be considered operable for

ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling

and revising the Applicability statement to

include all of Mode 4. These changes will

require one train of RHR to be aligned for

ECCS operation throughout Mode 4.

This license amendment proposes Technical Specification changes which

assure that the ECCS-Shutdown TS LCO

requirements are met if a Mode 4 LOCA were

to occur. With these changes, other TS

requirements for shutdown cooling in Mode

4 will continue to be met. Based on review

of plant operating experience, there is no

discernable change in cooldown rates when

utilizing a single train of RHR for shutdown

cooling. Thus, no margin of safety is reduced

as part of this change.

Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment requests involve no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall,

Minneapolis, MN 55401.

NRC Branch Chief:

David L. Pelton.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-

366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,

Units 1 and 2, Appling County, GA Date of amendment request:

January 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15014A411.

Description of amendment request:

The licensee proposes to adopt

Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF) change number 523, revision 2,

Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas

Accumulation, for the Hatch Nuclear

Plant, Unit 1 and 2, technical

specifications (TS). The proposed

change would revise or add

Surveillance Requirements to verify that

the system locations susceptible to gas

accumulation are sufficiently filled with

water and to provide allowances which

permit performance of the verification.

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 Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that

require verification that the Emergency Core

Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat

Removal (RHR) System, the 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. 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

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the

RHR, the RHR SDC System, the CS System,

and the RCIC System are not rendered

inoperable due to accumulated gas and to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00090Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13912 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 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, RHR SDC System, the CS System, and

the RCIC System 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. Based on the above, SNC 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:

Jennifer M.

Buettner, Associate General Counsel,

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

40 Inverness Center Parkway,

Birmingham, AL 35201.

NRC Branch Chief:

Robert J.

Pascarelli.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South

Carolina Date of amendment request:

January 27, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15028A537.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed change, if approved,

would revise, in part, the description

and scope of human factors engineering

(HFE) operational sequence analysis

(OSA) task and delete a reference to

document WCAP-15847, which are

both identified as Tier 2* information in

the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR).

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

that 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 safety-

related 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 from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes to 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:

Ms. Kathryn M.

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20004-2514.

NRC Branch Chief:

Lawrence J.

Burkhart.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026,

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3

and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:

January 30, 2015. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15030A505.

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 Tier 2* information

contained within the Human Factors

Engineering Design Verification, Task

Support Verification and Integrated

System Validation (ISV) plans. These

documents are incorporated by

reference into the VEGP Units 3 and 4

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report,

and will additionally require changes to

be made to affected Tier 2 information.

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? VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00091Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13913 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Response: No.

The proposed amendment includes changes to Integrated System Validation

(ISV) activities, which are performed on the

AP1000 plant simulator to validate the

adequacy of the AP1000 human system

interface design and confirm that it meets

human factors engineering principles. The

proposed changes involve administrative

details related to performance of the ISV, and

no plant hardware or equipment is affected

whose failure could initiate an accident, or

that interfaces with a component that could

initiate an accident, or that contains

radioactive material. Therefore, these

changes have no effect on any accident

initiator in the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR), nor do they affect the

radioactive material releases in the UFSAR

accident analysis.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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 includes changes to ISV activities, which are

performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to

validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human

system interface design and confirm that it

meets human factors engineering principles.

The proposed changes involve administrative

details related to performance of the ISV, and

no plant hardware or equipment is affected

whose failure could initiate an accident, or

that interfaces with a component that could

initiate an accident, or that contains

radioactive material. Although the ISV may

identify a need to initiate changes to add,

modify, or remove plant structures, systems,

or components, these changes will not be

made directly as part of the ISV.

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 includes changes to ISV activities, which are

performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to

validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human

system interface design and confirm that it

meets human factors engineering principles.

The proposed changes involve administrative

details related to performance of the ISV, and

do not affect any safety-related equipment,

design code compliance, design 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

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.

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 amendment request:

September 13, 2012, as supplemented

August 2, 2013, July 3, July 17,

November 11, and December 12, 2014.

Publicly-available versions are in

ADAMS under Accession Nos.

ML12258A055, ML13217A072,

ML14189A554, ML14198A574,

ML14315A051 and ML14346A643,

respectively.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would

modify certain Technical Specification

(TS) requirements related to Completion

Times for Required Actions to provide

the option to calculate a longer, risk-

informed Completion Time. The

allowance will be described in a new

program, Risk Informed Completion

Time Program (RICT), to be approved

by NRC and to be added to Chapter 5,

Administrative Controls, of the

Technical Specifications. The

methodology for using the RICT

Program is described in an industry

document NEI 06-09, Risk-Informed

Technical Specifications Initiative 4b,

Risk-Managed Technical Specifications

(RMTS) Guidelines, which was

approved by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) on May 17, 2007.

Adherence to NEI 06-09 is required by

the proposed RICT Program. The

proposed amendment is also consistent

with the methodologies presented in an industry initiative identified as TSTF-

505, Revision 1, Provide Risk-Informed

Extended Completion Times-RITSTF

Initiative 4b. Although the proposed

amendment is consistent with TSTF-

505, the licensee is not proposing

adoption of TSTF-505 with this

proposed amendment; the proposed

amendment is a site-specific action.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk

is assessed and managed within the Risk

Informed Completion Time Program. The

proposed change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability of an

accident previously evaluated because the

changes involve no change to the plant or its

modes of operation. This proposed change

does not increase the consequences of an

accident because the design-basis mitigation

function of the affected systems is not

changed and the consequences of an accident

during the extended Completion Time are no

different from those during the existing

Completion Time.

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 change does not change the design, configuration, or method of operation

of the plant. The proposed change does not

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no

new or different kind of equipment will be

installed).

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety[?]

Response: No.

The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk

is assessed and managed within the Risk

Informed Completion Time Program. The

proposed change implements a risk-informed

configuration management program to assure

that adequate margins of safety are

maintained. Application of these new

specifications and the configuration

management program considers cumulative

effects of multiple systems or components

being out of service and does so more

effectively than the current TS.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

requested amendment involve no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Jennifer M.

Buettner, Associate General Counsel,

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

40 Inverness Center Parkway,

Birmingham, AL 35242.

NRC Branch Chief:

Robert J.

Pascarelli. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00092Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13914 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),

Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328,

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1

and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date of amendment request:

December 2, 2014. A publicly-available

version is in ADAMS under Accession

No. ML14339A539.

Description of amendment request:

The amendments would revise

Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.h,

Containment Leakage Rate Testing

Program, by adopting Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A,

Industry Guideline for Implementing

Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR

part 50, Appendix J, as the

implementation document for the

performance-based Option B of 10 CFR

part 50, Appendix J. The proposed

changes would permanently extend the

Type A containment integrated leak rate

testing (ILRT) interval from 10 years to

15 years, and the Type C local leakage

rate testing (LLRT) intervals from 60

months to 75 months.

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 consequence of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR

part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The

current type A test interval of 10 years would

be extended to 15 years from the last Type

A test. The proposed extension to Type A

testing does not involve a significant increase

in the consequences of an accident because

research documented in NUREG-1493,

Performance-Based Containment System

Leakage Testing Requirements [sic]

[Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test

Program], September 1995, has found that,

generically, very few potential containment

leakage paths are not identified by Type B

and C tests. NUREG-1493 concluded that

reducing the Type A testing frequency to one

per twenty years was found to lead to an

imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree

of assurance is provided through testing and

inspection that the containment will not

degrade in a manner detectable only by Type

A testing. The last Type A test (performed

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2) shows

leakage to be below acceptance criteria,

indicating a very leak tight containment.

Inspections required by the ASME [American

Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code

section Xl (subsections IWE and IWL) and

Maintenance Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65,

Requirements for Monitoring the

Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear

Power Plants), are performed in order to

identify indications of containment

degradation that could affect that leak

tightness. Types B and C testing required by

TSs will identify any containment opening

such as valves that would otherwise be

detected by the Type A tests. These factors

show that a Type A test interval extension

will not represent a significant increase in

the consequences of an accident.

The proposed amendment involves changes to the SQN, Units 1 and 2, 10 CFR

50 Appendix J Testing Program Plan. The

proposed amendment does not involve a

physical change to the plant or a change in

the manner in which the units are operated

or controlled. The primary containment

function is to provide an essentially leak

tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for

postulated accidents. As such, the

containment itself 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, and do not

involve any accident precursors or initiators.

Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased by the proposed

amendment.

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision

3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1

and 2, performance-based leakage testing

program. Implementation of these guidelines

continues to provide adequate assurance that

during design basis accidents, the primary

containment and its components will limit

leakage rates to less than the values assumed

in the plant safety analyses. The potential

consequences of extending the ILRT interval

from 10 years to 15 years have been

evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes

in risk. The increase in risk in terms of

person-rem per year resulting from design

basis accidents was estimated to be very

small, and the increase in the LERF [large

early release frequency] resulting from the

proposed change was determined to be

within the guidelines published in NRC RG

[Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, the

proposed change maintains defense-in-depth

by preserving a reasonable balance among

prevention of core damage, prevention of

containment failure, and consequence

mitigation. TVA has determined that the

increase in CCFP [conditional containment

failure probability] due to the proposed

change would be very small.

Based on the above discussions, the proposed changes do not involve an increase

in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-

year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The current test interval of 10 years, based on

past performance, would be extended to 15

years from the last Type A test (performed

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The

proposed extension to Type A and Type C

test intervals does not create the possibility

of a new or different type of accident because

there are no physical changes being made to

the plant and there are no changes to the

operation of the plant that could introduce a

new failure mode creating an accident or

affecting the mitigation of an accident.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-

year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part

50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-

month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR

part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The

current test interval of 10 years, based on

past performance, would be extended to 15

years from the last Type A test (performed

October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and

December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The

proposed extension to Type A testing will

not significantly reduce the margin of safety.

NUREG-1493, Performance-Based

Containment System Leakage Testing

Requirements [sic] [Performance-Based

Containment Leak-Test Program],

September 1995, generic study of the effects

of extending containment leakage testing,

found that a 20-year extension to Type A

leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible

increase in risk to the public. NUREG-1493

found that, generically, the design

containment leakage rate contributes about

0.1% to the individual risk and that the

decrease in Type A testing frequency would

have a minimal effect on this risk since 95%

of the potential leakage paths are detected by

Type C testing. Regular inspections required

by the ASME Code section Xl (subsections

IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule

monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for

Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance

at Nuclear Power Plants) will further reduce

the risk of a containment leakage path going

undetected.

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision

3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1

and 2, performance-based leakage testing

program, and establishes a 15-year interval

for the performance of the primary

containment ILRT and a 75-month interval

for Type C testing. The amendment does not

alter the manner in which safety limits,

limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting

conditions for operation are determined. The

specific requirements and conditions of the

10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Testing Program

Plan, as defined in the TS, ensure that the

degree of primary containment structural

integrity and leak-tightness that is considered

in the plant safety analyses is maintained.

The overall containment leakage rate limit

specified by the TS is maintained, and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00093Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13915 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests will continue to be performed at the

frequencies established in accordance with

the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01,

Revision 3-A.

Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve

to provide a high degree of assurance that the

containment will not degrade in a manner

that is detectable only by an ILRT. This

ensures that evidence of containment

structural degradation is identified in a

timely manner. Furthermore, a risk assessment using the current SQN, Units 1

and 2, PRA model concluded that extending

the ILRT test interval from 10 years to 15

years results in a very small change to the

SQN, Units 1 and 2, risk profile.

Accordingly, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,

400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West

Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.

NRC Branch Chief:

Shana R. Helton.

III. Previously Published Notices of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Combined Licenses,

Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination, and

Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual

notices. The notice content was the

same as above. They were published as

individual notices either because time

did not allow the Commission to wait

for this biweekly notice or because the

action involved exigent circumstances.

They are repeated here because the

biweekly notice lists all amendments

issued or proposed to be issued

involving no significant hazards

consideration.

For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and

page cited. This notice does not extend

the notice period of the original notice.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester

County, New York Date of amendment request:

February 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15044A471.

Brief description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would allow a revision to the acceptance criteria for the Surveillance

Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control Rod G-

3. During the last two performances of

this Surveillance on September 18,

2014, and December 11, 2014, Control

Rod G-3 misalignment occurred with

Shutdown Bank B group movement as

displayed by Individual Rod Position

Indication and Plant Instrument

Computer System. The proposed change

is to defer subsequent testing of the

Control Rod G-3 until repaired during

the next refuel outage (March 2016) or

forced outage long enough to repair the

Control Rod.

Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:

March 2,

2015 (80 FR 11236).

Expiration date of individual notice:

April 1, 2015 (public comments); May 1,

2015 (hearing requests).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 for

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

(DCPP), Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 72-

26 for Diablo Canyon Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),

San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request:

September 24, 2013, as supplemented

by letters dated December 18, 2013

(security-related), and May 15, 2014.

Publicly-available versions of the letters

dated September 24, 2013, and May 15,

2014, are in ADAMS under Accession

Nos. ML13268A398 and ML14135A379,

respectively.

Brief description of amendment request:

The proposed amendments would modify the licenses to reflect a

grant of section 161A of the Atomic

Energy Act, to authorize the licensee the

authority to possess and use certain

firearms, ammunition, and other devices

such as large-capacity ammunition

feeding devices, to implement the NRC-

approved security plan for DCPP, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, and the Diablo Canyon

ISFSI. Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:

February

18, 2015 (80 FR 8706).

Expiration date of individual notice:

March 20, 2015 (public comments);

April 19, 2015 (hearing requests).

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361, 50-362, and

72-41, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San

Diego County, California Date of amendment request:

August 28, 2013, as supplemented by letters

dated December 31, 2013, May 15, 2014,

and February 10, 2015. Publicly-

available versions are in ADAMS under

Accession Nos. ML13242A277, ML14007A496, ML14139A424, and ML15044A047, respectively.

Brief description of amendment request:

The licensee is requesting that the Commission grant it preemption

authority consistent with the

Commission's authority under section

161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended, to authorize the security

personnel of designated classes of

licensees to possess, use, and access

covered weapons for the physical

security of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, and

the Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation, notwithstanding Federal,

State, or local laws prohibiting such

possession or use. If the amendment

request is granted, the licenses would be

modified to reflect the Commission's

granting of section 161A preemption

authority.

Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:

February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8701).

Expiration date of individual notice:

March 20, 2015 (public comments);

April 20, 2015 (hearing requests).

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and

Combined Licenses and Final

Determination of No Significant

Hazards Consideration and

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent

Public Announcement or Emergency

Circumstances)

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 for the

amendment 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.

Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date

the amendment was needed, there was

not time for the Commission to publish,

for public comment before issuance, its

usual notice of consideration of

issuance of amendment, proposed no

significant hazards consideration

determination, and opportunity for a

hearing.

For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local

media to provide notice to the public in

the area surrounding a licensee's facility

of the licensee's application and of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00094Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13916 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration.

The Commission has provided a

reasonable opportunity for the public to

comment, using its best efforts to make

available to the public means of

communication for the public to

respond quickly, and in the case of

telephone comments, the comments

have been recorded or transcribed as

appropriate and the licensee has been

informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for

example, in derating or shutdown of a

nuclear power plant or in prevention of

either resumption of operation or of

increase in power output up to the

plant's licensed power level, the

Commission may not have had an

opportunity to provide for public

comment on its no significant hazards

consideration determination. In such

case, the license amendment has been

issued without opportunity for

comment. If there has been some time

for public comment but less than 30

days, the Commission may provide an

opportunity for public comment. If

comments have been requested, it is so

stated. In either event, the State has

been consulted by telephone whenever

possible.

Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the pendency before it of a request for

a hearing from any person, in advance

of the holding and completion of any

required hearing, where it has

determined that no significant hazards

consideration is involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The basis for this

determination is contained in the

documents related to this action.

Accordingly, the amendments have

been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 application for

amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to

the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on

the Internet at the NRC's Web site,

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

collections/cfr/.

If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the

PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-

4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to

pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

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 petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

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 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. Since the Commission has

made a final determination that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration, if a hearing is

requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any

hearing held would take place while the

amendment is in effect.

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 E-

Filing 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00095Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13917 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 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 NRC-

issued 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 E-

Submittal server are detailed in the

NRC's Guidance for Electronic

Submission, which is available on the

agency's public Web site at http://

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

submittals.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 Web-

based 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/e-

submittals.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/e-submittals.html.

A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are

submitted through the NRC's E-Filing

system. To be timely, an electronic

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of

a transmission, the E-Filing system

time-stamps the document and sends

the submitter an email notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

E-Filing system also distributes an email

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRC's Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore,

applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they

can obtain access to the document via

the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system

may seek assistance by contacting the

NRC Meta System Help Desk through

the Contact Us link located on the

NRC's public Web site at http://

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

submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC

Meta System Help Desk is available

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

Time, Monday through Friday,

excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file an

exemption request, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper

filing requesting authorization to

continue to submit documents in paper

format. Such filings must be submitted

by: (1) first class mail addressed to the

Office of the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,

express mail, or expedited delivery

service to the Office of the Secretary,

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking

and Adjudications Staff. Participants

filing a document in this manner are

responsible for serving the document on

all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited

delivery service upon depositing the

document with the provider of the

service. A presiding officer, having

granted an exemption request from

using E-Filing, may require a participant

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding

officer subsequently determines that the

reason for granting the exemption from

use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's

electronic hearing docket which is

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/,

unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission,

or the presiding officer. Participants are

requested not to include personal

privacy information, such as social

security numbers, home addresses, or

home phone numbers in their filings,

unless an NRC regulation or other law

requires submission of such

information. However, a request to

intervene will require including

information on local residence in order

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of

interest in the proceeding. With respect

to copyrighted works, except for limited

excerpts that serve the purpose of the

adjudicatory filings and would

constitute a Fair Use application,

participants are requested not to include

copyrighted materials in their

submission.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating

Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County,

Pennsylvania Date of amendment request:

February 12, 2015.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment extends the

implementation period for Amendment

No. 174, Leak Detection System

Setpoint and Allowable Value

Changes, which was issued on

December 29, 2014. Amendment No.

174 was effective as of the date of

issuance (

i.e., on December 29, 2014) and was required to be implemented

within 60 days (

i.e., by February 27, 2015). Amendment No. 177 extends the

implementation period for Amendment

No. 174 from 60 days to prior to startup

from the spring 2015 refueling outage.

Date of issuance:

February 25, 2015.

Effective date:

As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from the Spring 2015

Unit 2 Refueling Outage.

Amendment No.:

177. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15049A084;

documents related to this amendment

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00096Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13918 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-85:

Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License to

extend the implementation date of

Amendment No. 174, issued on

December 29, 2014, to prior to startup

from the Spring 2015 Unit 2 Refueling

Outage. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards

consideration (NSHC):

Yes. Public

notice of the proposed amendment was

published in The Pottstown Mercury,

located in in Pottstown, Pennsylvania,

on February 15, and February 16, 2015.

The notice provided an opportunity to

submit comments on the Commission's

proposed NSHC determination.

Comments were received.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent

circumstances, state consultation,

public comments, and final NSHC

determination are contained in a safety

evaluation dated February 25, 2015.

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:

Douglas A.

Broaddus.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN),

Units 1, 2, and 3, Respectively,

Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request:

February 12, 2015.

Brief description of amendment request:

The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5,

Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),

to add the date of a previously issued

NRC safety evaluation (SE) that stated it

was acceptable for the licensee to use

new analytical methods supporting the

use of ATRIUM 10XM (10XM) fuel. In

its letter dated February 12, 2015, the

licensee stated BFN, Unit 2, is entering

an outage on March 14, 2015, and is

scheduled to commence loading 10XM

fuel on March 17, 2015. Because the TSs

do not reference the aforementioned

NRC evaluation, the licensee would not

be able to issue a COLR for the Unit 2

transition cycle unless the notation to

the latest NRC SE is added. Therefore,

the licensee requested that NRC process

the license amendment request under

exigent circumstances in accordance

with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The NRC staff

determined that the provisions of 10

CFR 50.91(a)(6) were applicable for

processing the licensee's request under

exigent circumstances.

Date of issuance:

February 26, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

during the refueling outages in fall of

2016 for Unit 1, in spring of 2015 for

Unit 2, and in spring of 2016 for Unit

3. Amendment Nos.:

288, 313, and 272, which are available in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15051A337.

Documents related to these amendments

are listed in the SE enclosed with the

amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:

Amendments revised the TSs.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards

consideration (NSHC):

The public

notice was published in The

Huntsville Times, located in

Huntsville, Alabama, on February 18

and 20, 2015. The notice provided an

opportunity to submit comments on the

Commission's proposed NSHC

determination. No comments have been

received.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent

circumstances, state consultation, and

final NSHC determination are contained

in a safety evaluation dated February 26,

2015. Attorney for licensee:

General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A,

Knoxville, TN 37902.

NRC Branch Chief:

Shana R. Helton.

V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses and

Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the

Commission has issued the following

amendments. The Commission has

determined for each of these

amendments that the application

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

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

Commission's rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission's rules and regulations in

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendment.

A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating

license or combined license, as

applicable, proposed no significant

hazards consideration determination,

and opportunity for a hearing in

connection with these actions, was

published in the Federal Register as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these

amendments satisfy the criteria for

categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for these

amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment

under the special circumstances

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has

made a determination based on that

assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for

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

the Commission's related letter, Safety

Evaluation and/or Environmental

Assessment as indicated. All of these

items can be accessed as described in

the Obtaining Information and

Submitting Comments section of this

document.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of application for amendment:

December 12, 2012, as supplemented by

letters dated February 21, September 30,

October 24, and December 2, 2013;

April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14,

November 4, and December 18, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment authorizes the transition of

the Palisades Nuclear Plant fire

protection program to a risk-informed,

performance-based program based on

National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) 805, in accordance with 10 CFR

50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows the use of

performance-based methods such as fire

modeling and risk-informed methods

such as fire probabilistic risk assessment

to demonstrate compliance with the

nuclear safety performance criteria.

Date of issuance:

February 27, 2015.

Effective date:

As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented by six months from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.:

254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15007A191;

documents related to this amendment

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendment.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20:

Amendment revised the

Renewed Facility Operating License and

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11148). The supplements dated April 2,

May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4,

and December 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

. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00097Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13919 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27,

2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1,

Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request:

March 26, 2013, as supplemented by letters

dated November 14, 2013, and August

18, October 22, and December 5, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment revised the Technical

Specification (TS) requirements for end

states associated with the

implementation of the NRC-approved

Topical Report BAW-2441-A, Revision

2, Risk-Informed Justification for LCO

End-State Changes, as well as Required

Actions revised by a specific Note in TS

Task Force (TSTF) change traveler

TSTF-431, Revision 3, Change in

Technical Specifications End States

(BAW-2441).

Date of issuance:

March 3, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment No.:

253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15023A147;

documents related to this amendment

are listed in the Safety Evaluation

enclosed with the amendment.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51:

Amendment revised the

TSs/license.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44170).

The supplemental letters dated

November 14, 2013, and August 19,

October 22, 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 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 March 3, 2015.

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:

December 9, 2013, as supplemented by

letters dated October 1, 2014, and

December 17, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment revised the Technical

Specifications for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 to improve

clarity, correct administrative and

typographical errors, or establish

consistency with NUREG-1432,

Standard Technical Specifications-

Combustion Engineering Plants,

Revision 4.0.

Date of issuance:

February 23, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 90 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.:

242. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15005A126;

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 and Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45475).

The supplements dated October 1, 2014,

and December 17, 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 February 23,

2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie

County, Florida Date of amendment request:

February 26, 2014, as supplemented by letters

dated May 29 and July 25, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendments revised the Technical

Specifications (TSs), modifying

requirements for mode change

limitations in Limiting Condition for

Operation 3.0.4 and Surveillance

Requirement (SR) 4.0.4 to adopt the

provisions of Industry/TS Task Force

(TSTF)-359, Rev. 9, Increase

Flexibility in MODE Restraints. The

language of SR 4.0.1 is revised to

conform to the language of NUREG-

1432, Standard Technical

Specifications for Combustion

Engineering Plants, to resolve language

incongruences and ensure conservative

implementation of the TSTF-359, Rev.

9, changes.

Date of issuance:

February 27, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

220 and 170. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS

under Accession No. ML14343A918;

documents related to these amendments

are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)

enclosed with the amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised

the Renewed Facility Operating

Licenses and TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30187).

The supplements dated May 29 and July

25, 2014, provided additional

information that clarified the

application, did not expand the scope of

the application as originally noticed,

and did not change the staff's original

proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register

. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a SE

dated February 27, 2015.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant,

Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas Date of amendment request:

July 1, 2014. Brief description of amendment:

The amendments revised Technical

Specification 3.8.1, AC [Alternating

Current] Sources-Operating, to extend

on a one-time basis the Completion

Time (CT) of Required Action A.3,

Restore required offsite circuit to

OPERABLE status, from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 14

days. The CT extension from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />

to 14 days will be used while

completing the plant modification to

install alternate startup transformer

XST1A and will expire on March 31,

2017. Date of issuance:

February 24, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within [licensee requested number] days

from the date of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

Unit 1-164; Unit 2-164. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15008A133; documents related to

these amendments are listed in the

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the

amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:

The amendments

revised the Facility Operating Licenses

and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64226). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00098Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13920 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit

1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:

April 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated

January 27, 2015.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment revised Technical

Specification section 3.2, Table 3-5, for

Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to add

a new surveillance requirement to verify

the correct position of the valves

required to restrict flow in the high

pressure safety injection system.

Date of issuance:

February 20, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment No.:

280. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

Accession No. ML15015A413;

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:

August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49108). The supplemental letter dated

January 27, 2015, 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 February 20,

2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda

County, Texas Date of amendment request:

August 14, 2014, as supplemented by letter

dated December 18, 2014.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments revised Administrative

Controls Technical Specification (TS)

6.9.1.6, Core Operating Limits Report

(COLR), with respect to the analytical

methods used to determine the core

operating limits.

Date of issuance:

February 27, 2015.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

Unit 1-204; Unit 2-192. A publicly-available version is

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML15049A129; documents related to

these amendments are listed in the

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the

amendments.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80:

The amendments

revised the Facility Operating Licenses

and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

December 2, 2014 (79 FR 71455). The supplemental letter dated

December 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 amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 27,

2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michele G. Evans,

Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2015-05994 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding

an Information Collection Request (ICR)

to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). Our

ICR describes the information we seek

to collect from the public. Review and

approval by OIRA ensures that we

impose appropriate paperwork burdens.

The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to

determine (1) the practical utility of the

collection; (2) the accuracy of the

estimated burden of the collection; (3)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information that is the

subject of collection; and (4) ways to

minimize the burden of collections on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the

ICR. For proper consideration of your

comments, it is best if the RRB and

OIRA receive them within 30 days of

the publication date.

Title and Purpose of information collection:

Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum; OMB 3220-0083.

Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the total monthly

benefits payable to a railroad employee

and his/her family are guaranteed to be

no less than the amount which would

be payable if the employee's railroad

service had been covered by the Social

Security Act. This is referred to as the

Social Security Overall Minimum

Guarantee, which is prescribed in 20

CFR 229. To administer this provision,

the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)

requires information about a retired

employee's spouse and child(ren) who

would not be eligible for benefits under

the RRA but would be eligible for

benefits under the Social Security Act if

the employee's railroad service had

been covered by that Act. The RRB

obtains the required information by the

use of Forms G-319, Statement

Regarding Family and Earnings for

Special Guaranty Computation, and G-

320, Student Questionnaire for Special

Guaranty Computation. One response is

required of each respondent.

Completion is required to obtain or

retain benefits.

Previous Requests for Comments:

The RRB has already published the initial

60-day notice (80 FR 1679 on January

13, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2). That request elicited no

comments.

Information Collection Request (ICR)

Title: Statement Regarding Contributions and Support of Children.

Title: Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum.

OMB Control Number:

3220-0083.

Forms submitted:

G-319 and G-320.

Type of request:

Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Affected public:

Individuals or Households.

Abstract:

Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act, the total

monthly benefits payable to a railroad

employee and his/her family are

guaranteed to be no less than the

amount which would be payable if the

employee's railroad service had been

covered by the Social Security Act.

Changes proposed:

The RRB proposes non-burden impacting editorial changes

to Forms G-319 and G-320.

The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00099Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES