[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49104-49112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19386]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0189]


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 July 24, 2014 to August 6, 2014. The last 
biweekly notice was published on August 5, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 18, 2014. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 20, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0189. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected].
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear

[[Page 49105]]

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0189 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-2014-0189.
     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 [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0189 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment 
submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment 
submissions into ADAMS, and 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 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 Sec.  50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request 
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing 
or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) the name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/

[[Page 49106]]

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.

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 [email protected], 
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 
[email protected], 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,

[[Page 49107]]

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 this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on obtaining information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of amendment request: October 2, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 19, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML13284A063 and ML14188B450, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
incorporates Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
493-A, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for 
LSSS [limiting safety system settings] Functions,'' Option A. The 
availability of this Technical Specification (TS) improvement was 
announced in the Federal Register on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26294). The 
proposed amendment would revise the TSs by adding requirements to 
assess channel performance during testing that verifies instrument 
channel setting values established by plant-specific setpoint 
methodologies to all the functions identified in TSTF-493, Revision 4, 
Appendix A. Notice of this action was previously published in the 
Federal Register on January 21, 2014 (79 FR 3415). The renoticing of 
this action is provided to include a supplement to the licensee's 
application dated October 2, 2013, which is dated June 19, 2014. This 
renotice replaces and supersedes the Federal Register notice of January 
21, 2014, in its entirety. The supplement dated June 19, 2014, added TS 
Table 3.3.6.2-1 Function 1 to the list of functions included in the 
adoption of TSTF-493, Revision 4, which is not included in Appendix A 
of TSTF-493.
    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 adds test requirements to TS instrument 
Functions related to those variables that have a significant safety 
function to ensure that instruments will function as required to 
initiate protective systems or actuate mitigating systems at the 
point assumed in the applicable safety analysis. Surveillance tests 
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 
TS for which surveillance Notes are added 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.
    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 change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, 
i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed. The 
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but 
ensures that the instruments perform as assumed in the accident 
analysis. The proposed change 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 previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds test requirements that will assure that 
TS instrumentation AVs [allowable values] (1) will be limiting 
settings for assessing instrument channel operability and (2) will 
be conservatively determined so that evaluation of instrument 
performance history and the ALT [as-left tolerance] requirements of 
the calibration procedures will not have an adverse effect on 
equipment operability. The testing methods and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components 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 updated FSAR [final safety analysis report]. There is 
no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the 
plant licensing basis because no change is made to the accident 
analysis assumptions.
    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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in

[[Page 49108]]

ADAMS under Accession No. ML14097A106.
    Description of amendment request: The Northern States Power Company 
proposes to revise MNGP technical specification (TS) 3.5.1, ``ECCS 
[Emergency Core Cooling]--Operating.'' Specifically, NSPM proposes to 
remove TS 3.5.1, Condition F, which currently provides a 72-hour 
Completion Time to restore one Core Spray subsystem to Operable status 
when both Core Spray subsystems are inoperable.
    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 provided below.

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Core Spray subsystems are designed to inject/spray the core 
after any size break up to and including a design basis Loss of 
Coolant Accident (LOCA). The proposed change to revise the 
Completion Time does not change the conditions, operating 
configurations or the minimum amount of operating equipment assumed 
in the safety analysis for accident mitigation. No change is 
proposed to the manner in which the Core Spray System provides plant 
protection or which would create new modes of plant operation.
    The proposed change will not affect the probability of any event 
initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of, or 
an increase in the number of challenges imposed on, safety-related 
equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There 
will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident 
mitigation performance.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There is no hardware change nor is there a change in the method 
by which any plant systems perform a safety function. This request 
does not affect the normal method of plant operation.
    The proposed change does not introduce new equipment which could 
create a new or different kind of accident. No new external threats, 
release pathways, or equipment failure modes are created. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this request.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The Core Spray subsystems are capable of providing water and 
removing heat loads to satisfy the Updated Safety Analysis Report 
requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown.
    There will be no change to the manner in which the safety limits 
or limiting safety system settings are determined, nor is there a 
change to those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment 
of protection functions.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14125A239.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change Technical Specification (TS) section 3.2, Table 3-5, for Fort 
Calhoun Station, Unit 1, to add a new surveillance requirement similar 
to standard TS to verify the correct position of the valves required to 
restrict flow in the high-pressure safety injection system.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to Technical Specification (TS) 3.2 Table 3-
5 would add a new surveillance requirement to verify the position of 
valves required to restrict flow in the high pressure safety 
injection system to ensure adequate flow is maintained following a 
design basis accident.
    The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
because: (1) The proposed amendment does not represent a change to 
the system design, (2) the proposed amendment does not alter, 
degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in any accident 
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) from being performed, (3) the 
proposed amendment does not alter any assumptions previously made in 
evaluating radiological consequences, and [4)] the proposed 
amendment does not affect the integrity of any fission product 
barrier. No other safety related equipment is affected by the 
proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds a surveillance requirement to verify 
the position of valves. The proposed change does not alter the 
physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions 
associated with the operation of the plant. Hence, the proposed 
change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor does it 
reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure 
or system in the performance of their safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to add a new surveillance requirement does 
not alter the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety 
system settings are determined. The safety analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by this proposed change. Further, the 
proposed change does not change the design function of any equipment 
assumed to operate in the event of an accident. The change only adds 
a requirement to periodically verify the position of valves.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.

[[Page 49109]]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power 
Plant Unit 3, and Docket No. 72-027, Humboldt Bay Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation, Humboldt County, California
    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14182A476.
    Description of amendment request: The license amendment request 
proposes changes to the Humboldt Bay (HB) site Emergency Plan (E-Plan). 
The proposed changes are a reduction in the emergency planning function 
commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in radiological 
source term at the Humboldt Bay site. These changes are a revised E-
Plan organization, the replacement of a dedicated on-call emergency 
response team with advisory personnel on an as-needed basis, the 
elimination of the initiating events and emergency action levels for 
Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3, and a revision to the emergency 
action level (EAL) information for the HB Independent Spent Fuel 
Storage Installation (ISFSI).
    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 change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are a reduction in the emergency planning 
function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in 
radiological source term at the HB site. These changes are a revised 
E-Plan organization, the replacement of a dedicated on-call 
emergency response team with advisory personnel on an as-needed 
basis, the elimination of the initiating events and emergency action 
levels for Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3, and a revision to 
the emergency action level information for the HB ISFSI. There are 
no longer credible events that would result in doses to the public 
beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guidelines 
(PAGs). HBPP was shutdown in 1976 and was not restarted. All spent 
fuel and Greater Than Class C (GTCC) waste has been transferred to 
the ISFSI. Emergency Planning Zones beyond the owner controlled area 
and the associated protective actions are no longer required. No 
headquarters personnel, personnel involved in off-site dose 
projections, or personnel with special qualifications are required 
to augment the HB Emergency Response Organization. The credible 
events for the ISFSI remain unchanged. The indications of damage to 
a loaded cask confinement boundary have been revised to be twice the 
design basis dose rate as described in Section 7.3.2.1 of the ISFSI 
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (0.3 mrem/hr). This change is 
consistent with industry practices previously approved by the NRC 
for other ISFSIs to be able to distinguish that a degraded condition 
exists.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are a reduction in the emergency planning 
function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in 
radiological source term at the HB site. These changes are a revised 
E-Plan organization, the replacement of a dedicated on-call 
emergency response team with advisory personnel on an as-needed 
basis, the elimination of the initiating events and EALs for HBPP, 
Unit 3, and a revision to the EAL information for the HB ISFSI. 
There are no longer credible events that would result in doses to 
the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would 
exceed the EPA PAGs. HBPP was shutdown in 1976 and was not 
restarted. All spent fuel and GTCC waste has been transferred to the 
ISFSI. Emergency Planning Zones beyond the owner controlled area and 
the associated protective actions are no longer required. No 
headquarters personnel, personnel involved in off-site dose 
projections, or personnel with special qualifications are required 
to augment the HB Site Emergency Response Organization. The proposed 
changes involve a revision to the HP Site E-Plan only, and do not 
involve any physical changes to the HB Site that would create the 
possibility of a new or different accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are a reduction in the emergency planning 
function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in 
radiological source term at the HB site. These changes are a revised 
E-Plan organization, the replacement of a dedicated on-call 
emergency response team with advisory personnel on an as-needed 
basis, the elimination of the initiating events and EALs for HBPP 
Unit 3, and a revision to the EAL information for the HB ISFSI. 
There are no longer credible events that would result in doses to 
the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would 
exceed the EPA PAGs. HBPP was shutdown in 1976 and was not 
restarted. All spent fuel and GTCC waste has been transferred to the 
ISFSI. Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission 
product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary 
containment) to perform their design functions during and following 
postulated accidents. There are no longer credible events that would 
result in doses to the public beyond the owner controlled area 
boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs. Emergency Planning Zones 
beyond the owner controlled area and the associated protective 
actions are no longer required. No headquarters personnel, personnel 
involved in offsite dose projections, or personnel with special 
qualifications are required to augment the HB Site Emergency 
Response Organization. The proposed changes involve a revision to 
the HB Site E-Plan only and do not affect the fission product 
barrier design or capability of the ISFSI.
    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: Jennifer K. Post, Law Department, Pacific 
Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, B30A, San Francisco, CA.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California
    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14086A426.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise various technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements 
(SRs) associated with the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, 
emergency Diesel Generators (DGs). The proposed changes reflect the 
results of a revised load study analysis, as well as a revision to the 
DG 30-minute load rating. These changes were submitted to address 
multiple issues identified by NRC and licensee investigations, and are 
intended to correct various non-conservative TS values associated with 
DG testing.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise the acceptance criteria to be 
applied to existing TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs.

[[Page 49110]]

    The performing of a surveillance test is not an accident 
initiator and does not increase the probability of an accident 
occurring. The proposed new surveillance acceptance criteria will 
continue to assure that the DGs are capable of carrying the peak 
electrical loading assumed in the various existing safety analyses, 
which take credit for the operation of the DGs. The DG loads during 
the proposed surveillances are increased; however, they remain 
within vendor specifications.
    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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise the acceptance criteria to be 
applied to existing TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs. The 
proposed changes do not involve installation of new equipment or 
modification of existing equipment, so no new equipment failure 
modes are introduced. The proposed revision to the DG surveillance 
test acceptance criteria is not a change to the way that the 
equipment or facility is operated and no new accident initiators are 
created.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise the acceptance criteria to be 
applied to existing TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs. The 
conduct of performance tests on safety related plant equipment is a 
means of assuring that the equipment is capable of maintaining the 
margin of safety established in the safety analyses for the 
facility. These changes do not significantly reduce the safety 
margin because the proposed SRs comply with RG [Regulatory Guide] 
1.108, R1 [Revision 1, ``Periodic Testing of Diesel Generator Units 
Used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants,'' 
August 1977; available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12216A011] and 
Safety Guide 9 [``Selection of Diesel Generator Set Capacity for 
Standby Power Supplies''] (March 1971) [available under ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12305A251], or an exception has been requested. The 
changes are consistent in comparison to RG 1.9, R3 [Revision 3, 
``Selection, Design, Qualification, and Testing of Emergency Diesel 
Generator Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Systems at 
Nuclear Power Plants,'' July 1993; available under ADAMS Accession 
No. ML003739929]. The proposed DG test load values, which include 
the requested exception to RG 1.108, R1, are not a reduction in 
margin because the values are bounded by the DG manufacturer's 
ratings. With the proposed changes in the DG TS surveillance test 
acceptance criteria, the DG will continue to be tested in a manner 
that assures it will perform as assumed in the existing safety 
analyses.
    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: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: January 16, 2014, as supplemented July 
22, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML14016A202 and ML14203A160.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, Control Room Air 
Conditioning (AC) System, to provide new Required Actions (RAs) for 
one, two, or three main control room (MCR) AC subsystems inoperable, 
and make other required corresponding changes.
    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 provided below:

    SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards 
consideration is involved with the proposed generic change by 
focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, 
``Issuance of amendment,'' as discussed 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 allows 7 days to restore an inoperable Main 
Control Room Air Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two subsystems 
are inoperable and allows 72 hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC 
subsystem when three subsystems are inoperable, provided MCR 
temperature is verified every four hours to be less than 90[deg]F 
[degrees Fahrenheit]. The new Required Action Completion Times are 
revised to be dependent upon the MCR temperature, instead of being 
dependent upon the outside air temperature. The option to operate 
indefinitely with one MCR AC subsystem inoperable provided the 
outside area temperature is less than 65[deg]F is being deleted.
    In the event that new Conditions A, B, or Care not met during 
movement of irradiated fuel assemblies in the secondary containment, 
during CORE ALTERATIONS, or during OPDRVs [operations with a 
potential for draining the reactor vessel], Conditions E and F are 
modified and added, respectively, to state Required Actions and 
Completion Times. These Required Actions include immediate 
suspension of the current activity as necessary. As a result of 
these changes, current Conditions F and G are no longer necessary 
and are deleted.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
The design basis equipment temperature limit of the control room 
equipment is not affected. Future changes to the Bases or licensee 
controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, test and experiments'', to ensure that 
such changes do not result in more than a minimal increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to 
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types 
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows 7 days to restore an inoperable Main 
Control Room Air Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two subsystems 
are inoperable and allows 72 hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC 
subsystem when three subsystems are inoperable, provided MCR 
temperature is verified every four hours to be less than 90[deg]F. 
The new Required Action Completion Times are revised to be dependent 
upon the MCR temperature, instead of being dependent upon the 
outside air temperature. The option to operate indefinitely with one 
MCR AC subsystem inoperable provided the outside area temperature is 
less than 65[deg]F is being deleted.
    In the event that new Conditions A, B, or C are not met during 
movement of irradiated fuel assemblies in the secondary

[[Page 49111]]

containment, during CORE ALTERATIONS, or during OPDRVs, Conditions E 
and F are modified and added, respectively, to state Required 
Actions and Completion Times. These Required Actions include 
immediate suspension of the current activity as necessary. As a 
result of these changes, current Conditions F and G are no longer 
necessary and are deleted.
    The changes do not involve a physical altering of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements 
in the TS continue to require maintaining the control room 
temperature within the design limits.
    Therefore, the changes do 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 allows 7 days to restore an inoperable Main 
Control Room Air Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two subsystems 
are inoperable and allows 72 hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC 
subsystem when three subsystems are inoperable, provided MCR 
temperature is verified every four hours to be less than 90[deg]F. 
The new Required Action Completion Times are revised to be dependent 
upon the MCR temperature, instead of being dependent upon the 
outside air temperature. The option to operate indefinitely with one 
MCR AC subsystem inoperable provided the outside area temperature is 
less than 65[deg]F is being deleted.
    In the event that new Conditions A, B, or C are not met during 
movement of irradiated fuel assemblies in the secondary containment, 
during CORE ALTERATIONS, or during OPDRVs, Conditions E and F are 
modified and added, respectively, to state Required Actions and 
Completion Times. These Required Actions include immediate 
suspension of the current activity as necessary. As a result of 
these changes, current Conditions F and G are no longer necessary 
and are deleted.
    Instituting the proposed changes will continue to maintain the 
control room temperature within design limits. Should it appear that 
control room temperature may exceed the design basis 105[deg]F 
equipment limit based on the control room temperature reaching 
90[deg]F in Modes 1, 2, or 3, the plant will be placed in the Cold 
Shutdown Mode (Mode 4). If the control room heatup is rapid, then 
the plant with be required to be placed in Mode 3 and in Mode 4 with 
a Completion Time that is similar to the current requirements. If 
the control room heatup is relatively slow (and the design basis 
equipment temperature is therefore less likely to be reached), 
longer time will be allowed to place the plant in Mode 3 and in Mode 
4 (if necessary). Changes to the Bases or license controlled 
document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This 
approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and 
ensures that the control room temperature will be maintained within 
design limits.
    The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls to preserve 
the current margins of safety. 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: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, 
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 
and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
    Date of application for amendments: December 4, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.5.1 to delete a 
note that is not conservative. The note is being deleted because plant 
operation, in accordance with the note, could result in potential 
damage to the residual heat removal system.
    Date of issuance: July 28, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 292 and 295. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14163A589; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR 
12245).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
    Date of amendment request: May 28, 2013, as supplemented by letters 
dated July 31, 2013, January 29, 2014, and March 26, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Seabrook 
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendment modified 
the TSs by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program with implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute 04-
10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specification Initiative 5B, Risk-
Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies.'' The changes 
are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications (STS) change TSTF-425, 
``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed

[[Page 49112]]

Technical Specifications Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' Revision 
3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The Federal Register notice 
published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the availability of 
this TS improvement.
    Date of issuance: July 24, 2014.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 141. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML13212A069; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the 
License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 
51227). The supplemental letters dated July 31, 2013, January 29, 2014, 
and March 26, 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 July 24, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station 
(Hope Creek), Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: July 30, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TS) to delete the operability and surveillance 
requirements (SRs) for the reactor coolant system safety/relief valve 
(SRV) position instrumentation from the Hope Creek TS. The operability 
and SRs for the SRV position instrumentation will be relocated by the 
licensee into the Hope Creek Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). The 
Hope Creek TRM is controlled in a manner consistent with procedures 
described in the Hope Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, and 
under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Future changes to the operability 
and SRs for the SRV position instrumentation will be performed pursuant 
to 10 CFR 50.59.
    Date of issuance: July 29, 2014.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 195. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14108A312; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment 
revised the License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 
18334).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil 
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, 
South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2013, as supplemented by 
the letter dated March 26, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorize a 
revision to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Emergency Plan to facilitate 
compliance with the Final Rule for Emergency Planning and Preparedness 
published on November 23, 2011.
    Date of issuance: June 23, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 2--13, and Unit 3--13. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14133A377 and ML14133A381; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments 
revised the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 19, 2014 (79 
FR 9490). The supplement dated March 26, 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 June 23, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone 
County, Alabama
    Date of application for amendments: February 28, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 30, 2013, and May 16, 2014.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments add three 
additional AREVA NP analysis methodologies to the list of approved 
methods to be used in determining core operating limits in the Core 
Operating Limits Report. In addition, the amendments implement a change 
to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio value for BFN Unit 2. 
The changes support a planned transition to AREVA ATRIUM 10XM (XM) fuel 
design. TVA intends to transition Unit 2 to XM design starting with 
Cycle 19 (spring 2015), Unit 3 in spring 2016, followed by Unit 1 in 
fall of 2016.
    Date of issuance: July 31, 2014.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented during the 
refueling outages of Unit 1 in fall of 2016, Unit 2 in spring 2015, 
Unit 3 in spring 2016.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--285, Unit 2--311, and Unit 3--270. A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14113A286; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 13, 2013 (78 FR 
49302). The supplemental letters dated September 30, 2013, and May 16, 
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 July 31, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of August 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-19386 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P