[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77041-77052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29906]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0271]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from November 27, 2014 to December 10, 2014. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 9, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 22, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by February 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0271. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected].
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0271 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
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-2014-0271.
     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,

[[Page 77042]]

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-2014-0271 in the subject line of your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 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/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

[[Page 77043]]

when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, 
notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take 
place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves a significant hazards 
consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The 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, 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

[[Page 77044]]

copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14188B189.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specifications (TSs) requirements to adopt the changes 
described in the NRC's approved Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-426, 
Revision 5, ``Revise or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO 3.0.3-
TSTF Initiatives 6b and 6c.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides a short Allowed Outage Time to 
restore an inoperable system for conditions under which the existing 
Technical Specifications require a plant shutdown to begin within 
one hour in accordance with LCO 3.0.3. Entering into Technical 
Specification Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of any 
previously evaluated accident that may occur during the proposed 
Allowed Outage Times are no different than the consequences of the 
same accident during the existing one hour allowance. As a result, 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from the proposed change. 
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., 
no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change 
in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the 
changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The 
proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change increases the allowed outage time MPS2 may 
continue to operate without the operability of any one of the five 
identified systems proposed in this change for up to 24 hours. The 
analyses in WCAP-16125-NP-A, ``Justification for Risk-Informed 
Modifications to Selected Technical Specifications for Conditions 
Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,'' Revision 2, August 2010, 
demonstrated that this limited increase in AOT results in an 
acceptably small increase in risk due to a limited period of 
continued operation in these conditions and that the associated risk 
is balanced by avoiding the similar risks associated with a plant 
shutdown. As a result, the change to the margin of safety proposed 
by modifying a plant shutdown within one hour is not significant.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: May 8, 2014, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 14, October 15, and October 16, 2014. Publicly-available 
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14133A009, ML14234A097, 
ML14294A452, and ML14294A451.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation'' and TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 
System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' to adopt Completion Time (CT) and 
test bypass time changes. These changes have been approved by the NRC 
in Topical Reports WCAP-14333-P-A, ``Probabilistic Risk Analysis of the 
RPS and ESFAS Test Times and Completion Times,'' Revision 1, dated 
October 1998, and WCAP-1 5376-P-A, ``Risk-informed Assessment of the 
RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test 
and Completion Times,'' Revision 1, dated March 2003.
    As discussed in the supplement dated August 14, 2014, the licensee 
subsequently deleted certain changes requested in the May 8, 2014 
application. Those changes were deleted because they were found by the 
NRC staff to be unsupported by the scope of the provisions approved by 
WCAP-14333-P-A, Revision 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Response: No.
    Overall protection system performance will remain within the 
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no 
hardware changes are proposed. The same RTS [Reactor Trip System] 
and ESFAS [Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System] 
instrumentation will continue to be used. The protection systems 
will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant 
design basis. These changes to the TS do not result in a condition 
where the design, material, and construction standards that were 
applicable prior to the change are altered.
    The proposed changes will not modify any system interface. The 
proposed changes will not affect the probability of any event 
initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of or an 
increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related 
equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There 
will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident 
mitigation performance. The proposed changes will not alter any 
assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological 
consequence evaluations in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

[[Page 77045]]

    The determination that the results of the proposed changes are 
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared 
for WCAP-14333-P-A, (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for 
WCAP-1 5376-P-A, (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002). 
Implementation of the proposed changes will result in an 
insignificant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has 
been verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of 
the generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC 
Safety Evaluation conditions.
    The proposed changes to the CTs, and test bypass times reduce 
the potential for inadvertent reactor trips and spurious engineered 
safeguard features actuations, and therefore do not increase the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed 
changes do not change the response of the plant to any accidents and 
have an insignificant impact on the reliability of the RTS and ESFAS 
signals. The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly reliable and the 
proposed changes will not result in a significant increase in the 
risk of plant operation. This is demonstrated by showing that the 
impact on plant safety, as measured by the increase in core damage 
frequency (CDF) is less than 1.OE-06 per year and the increase in 
large early release frequency (LERF) is less than 1.OE-07 per year. 
In addition, for the CT changes, the incremental conditional core 
damage probabilities (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early 
release probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.OE-07 and 5.OE-08, 
respectively. These changes meet the acceptance criteria in 
Regulatory Guides (RGs) 1.174 and 1.177.
    Therefore, since the RTS and ESFAS will continue to perform 
their functions with high reliability, as originally assumed, and 
the increase in risk, as measured by CDF, LERF, ICCDP, ICLERP risk 
metrics, is within the acceptance criteria of existing regulatory 
guidance, there will not be a significant increase in the 
consequences of any accidents.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from 
performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of 
an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions 
and resultant consequences.
    Therefore, this change does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Do proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the 
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety 
function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of 
plant operation. No performance requirements will be affected or 
eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in physical 
alteration to any plant system nor there any change in the method by 
which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. 
There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident analysis 
assumptions.
    No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result 
of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges 
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for 
any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis 
Limit. There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant 
systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection 
functions. There will be no impact on the departure from nucleate 
boiling limits, fuel centerline temperature, or any other margin of 
safety. The radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria listed 
in the NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety 
Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,'' will continue to be 
met.
    Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity 
with regard of the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered 
safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited 
as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the 
accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will 
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design 
basis. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the 
acceptance criteria contained in RGs 1.174 and 1.177.
    Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in 
an overall improvement in safety, as follows:
     Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating 
staff in monitoring and controlling plant operation will be 
realized. This is due to less frequent distraction of the operators 
and shift supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions 
with short CTs.
     Longer repair times associated with increased CTs will 
lead to higher quality repairs and improved reliability.
     The CT extensions for the reactor trip breakers will 
provide additional time to complete test and maintenance activities 
while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced outages 
related to compliance with reactor trip breaker CT, and provide 
consistency with the CT for the logic trains.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan
    Date of amendment request: October 21, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14295A078.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
replace the current emergency action level scheme with the scheme 
described in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, 
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors'' 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML110240324).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to DTE's EAL [emergency action level] 
scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, 
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' 
do not reduce the capability to meet the emergency planning 
requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. 
The proposed changes do not reduce the functionality, performance, 
or capability of DTE's ERO [Emergency Response Organization] to 
respond in mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident.
    The proposed changes do not alter the requirements of the 
Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed 
changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any 
failure modes that could lead to an accident. The proposed changes 
do not impact the consequence of an analyzed accident since the 
changes do not affect equipment related to accident mitigation. The 
proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to plant 
equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any 
accident analyses. The

[[Page 77046]]

proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or 
precursors nor do they alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration or the manner in which the plant is operated and 
maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability 
of Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs) to perform their 
intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an 
initiating event.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed EAL changes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in 
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant 
systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the 
addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not 
alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant 
equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. All DTE ERO 
functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed 
changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been 
previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed EAL changes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in 
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a design basis or 
safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis 
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that 
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed 
changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental 
conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. 
Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt 
the NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue 
to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any reduction in 
a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. Maters, DTE Energy, General 
Counsel--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: November 3, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14308A144.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add 
new Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) 3.0.5 and 3.0.6 to the 
Applicability section of the Technical Specifications (TSs). The LCO 
3.0.5 would establish an allowance for restoring equipment to service, 
under administrative controls, when the equipment has been removed from 
service or declared inoperable to comply with TS Action requirements. 
The LCO 3.0.6 would provide actions to be taken when the inoperability 
of a support system results in the inoperability of the related 
supported systems. In addition, the proposed amendment would add the 
Safety Function Determination Program to the Administrative Controls 
section of the TSs. This program is intended to ensure that a loss of 
safety function is detected and appropriate actions are taken when LCO 
3.0.6 is entered.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes involve the addition of a new Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.5 to the Applicability Section of 
the Limerick Generating Station (LGS) Technical Specifications (TS) 
which allows restoration of equipment to service under 
administrative controls when it has been removed from service or 
declared inoperable to comply with TS Action requirements. The 
potential impact of temporarily returning the equipment to service 
is considered to be insignificant since the equipment has been 
restored to a condition which is expected to provide the required 
safety function.
    Returning the equipment to service for operability testing will 
promote timely restoration of the equipment and reduce the 
probability of events that may have been prevented or mitigated by 
such operable equipment. Since the equipment to be restored is 
already out of service, the availability of the equipment has been 
previously considered in the evaluation of consequences of an 
accident. Temporarily returning the equipment to service in a state 
which is expected to function as required to mitigate the 
consequences of a previously analyzed accident will promote timely 
restoration of the equipment and restore the capabilities of the 
equipment to mitigate the consequences of any events previously 
analyzed.
    Additionally, the proposed changes involve the addition of a new 
LCO 3.0.6 to the Applicability Section of the LGS TS that provides 
appropriate actions to be taken when the inoperability of a support 
system results in the inoperability of related supported systems. 
Furthermore, the proposed changes involve adding new Safety Function 
Determination Program (SFDP) requirements to the Administrative 
Section of the LGS TS to ensure that a loss of safety function is 
detected and appropriate actions are taken when LCO 3.0.6 is 
entered.
    The proposed changes do not alter the physical design of any 
plant structure, system, or component; therefore, the proposed 
changes have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the 
availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The 
plant response to the design basis accidents does not change.
    Also, the proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory 
requirements regarding the content of plant TS as identified in 10 
CFR 50.36, and also the guidance as approved by the NRC in NUREG-
1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications-General Electric BWR 
[boiling-water reactor]/4 Plants.''
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes include the addition of a new LCO 3.0.5 to 
the Applicability Section of the LGS TS which allows restoration of 
equipment to service under administrative controls when it has been 
removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with TS Action 
requirements. Operation with the inoperable equipment temporarily 
restored to service is not considered a new mode of operation since 
existing procedures and administrative controls prevent the 
restoration of equipment to service until it is considered capable 
of providing the required safety function.
    Performance of the operability testing is considered to be a 
confirmatory check of that capability which demonstrates that the 
equipment is indeed operable. For those times when equipment which 
may be temporarily returned to service under administrative controls 
is subsequently determined to be inoperable, the resulting condition 
is comparable to the equipment having been determined to be 
inoperable during operation, with continued operation for a 
specified time allowed to complete required TS Actions. Since this 
condition has been previously evaluated in the development of the 
current TS, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated is not created.
    The proposed changes also involve the addition of a new LCO 
3.0.6 to the

[[Page 77047]]

Applicability Section of the LGS TS that provides appropriate 
actions to be taken when the inoperability of a support system 
results in the inoperability of related supported systems. Likewise, 
the proposed changes involve the addition of new Safety Function 
Determination Program (SFDP) requirements to the Administrative 
Section of the LGS TS to ensure that a loss of safety function is 
detected and appropriate actions are taken when LCO 3.0.6 is 
entered.
    The proposed changes do not alter the plant configuration (no 
new or different type of equipment is being installed) or require 
any new or unusual operator actions. The proposed changes do not 
alter the safety limits or safety analysis assumptions associated 
with the operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not 
introduce any new failure modes that could result in a new accident. 
The proposed changes do not reduce or adversely affect the 
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component in the 
performance of their safety function. Also, the response of the 
plant and the operators following the design basis accidents is 
unaffected by the proposed changes.
    In addition, the proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory 
requirements regarding the content of plant TS as identified in 10 
CFR 50.36, and also the guidance as approved by the NRC in NUREG-
1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications-General Electric BWR/4 
Plants.''
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes involve the addition of a new LCO 3.0.5 to 
the Applicability Section of the LGS TS which allows restoration of 
equipment to service under administrative controls when it has been 
removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with TS Action 
requirements.
    Temporarily returning inoperable equipment to service for the 
purpose of confirming operability, places the plant in a condition 
which has been previously evaluated and determined to be acceptable 
for short periods. Additionally, the equipment has been determined 
to be in a condition which provides the previously determined margin 
of safety. The performance of the operability testing simply 
confirms the expected result and capability of the equipment.
    Additionally, the proposed changes involve the addition of a new 
LCO 3.0.6 to the Applicability Section of the LGS TS that provides 
appropriate actions to be taken when the inoperability of a support 
system results in the inoperability of related supported systems. 
The proposed changes also involve adding new Safety Function 
Determination Program (SFDP) requirements to the Administrative 
Section of the LGS TS to ensure that a loss of safety function is 
detected and appropriate actions are taken when LCO 3.0.6 is 
entered.
    The proposed changes have no adverse effect on plant operation, 
or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation 
equipment. The plant response to the design basis accidents does not 
change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to 
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system 
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 
proposed changes.
    In addition, the proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory 
requirements regarding the content of plant TS as identified in 10 
CFR 50.36, and also the guidance as approved by the NRC in NUREG-
1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications-General Electric BWR/4 
Plants.''
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President 
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: August 26, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14246A203.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the CNS Technical Specifications (TS) and TS Bases by deleting 
Option b from TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.1 and its 
associated Bases. Option b allows use of Condensate Storage Tank (CST) 
`A' as an alternative source of makeup water to the Reactor Pressure 
Vessel during MODE 4 and MODE 5, but CST `A' is not qualified to 
Seismic Category I.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    It does not alter assumptions or results of analyses that verify 
[Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS)] are capable of performing 
their design functions during or after a [loss-of-coolant accident 
(LOCA)]. It does impose a restriction on plant operation, but the 
restriction does not affect any accident initiator, and it improves 
accident mitigation capability. The proposed amendment does not 
change any results of previously evaluated accidents in the Updated 
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) nor events with which the plant must 
be able to cope (e.g., earthquake, flooding, turbine missiles, and 
fire). ECCS operating procedures and administrative controls that 
are affected do not increase the likelihood of an event, nor do they 
change mitigating capabilities.
    The probability of occurrence remains the same as already 
presented in the USAR for initiating events. Thus, since the 
probabilities and consequences continue to meet the licensing basis, 
they are not significant changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This proposed TS amendment makes no physical change in the 
plant. It does not change the design functions of ECCS nor 
Condensate Storage Systems or components. The restriction on ECCS 
alignment preserves their availability and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different accident. It does not introduce a 
new or different kind of accident due to credible new failure 
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in 
the design and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    LOCA analysis results are not changed nor affected by the 
restriction on ECCS alignment to the suppression pool, because it is 
consistent with conditions assumed in the analysis. Thus, the 
conservatism in the evaluation and analysis methods are maintained. 
The safety margin before the TS change is the same as after the 
change. This change does not exceed or alter a design basis or 
safety limit and does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. 
Since, the drain-down events in MODES 4 and 5 are bounded by the 
LOCA analysis, the change to TS which prohibit their alignment to 
the CST also do not reduce the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

[[Page 77048]]

    Attorney for licensee: John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50-206, 
50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 
(SONGS), Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation, San Diego County, California
    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 21, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14092A249 and ML14297A016.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the SONGS facility operating license by revising the emergency 
action level (EAL) scheme consistent with the SONGS permanent shutdown 
and defueled status. On June 12, 2013, SCE submitted a certification of 
permanent cessation of power operations pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that SCE had decided to permanently cease power 
operation of SONGS effective June 7, 2013. With the docketing of 
subsequent certifications for permanent removal of fuel from the 
reactor vessels pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii) on June 28, 2013, 
and July 22, 2013, for Units 3 and 2, respectively, the 10 CFR part 50 
license for SONGS Units 2 and 3 no longer authorizes operation of the 
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as 
specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). SONGS, Unit 1, was permanently shut 
down in 1993 and is in the decommissioning phase. The proposed changes 
to the EAL scheme are being submitted to the NRC for approval prior to 
implementation, as required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and 10 CFR part 
50, Appendix E, Section IV.B.2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    [Response: No.]
    San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 have 
permanently ceased operation. The proposed amendment would replace 
the existing EAL scheme with an EAL scheme that reflects the 
permanently shut-down status of the plant. The proposed Emergency 
Action Level Scheme is based on NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 99-
01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-
Passive Reactors,'' Appendix C for permanently defueled stations. 
The proposed amendment has no effect on structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC 
to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not 
increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC.
    The spent fuel pool and its support systems are used for spent 
fuel storage. It is expected that SONGS will remain in a wet fuel 
storage configuration for approximately five years. In this 
condition, the spectrum of postulated accidents is much smaller than 
for an operational plant. As a result of the certifications 
submitted by SCE in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the 
consequent removal of authorization to operate the reactor or to 
place or retain fuel in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios postulated in the SONGS 
Final Safety Analysis Report are no longer possible, and there is no 
significant increase in consequences of previously postulated 
accidents.
    The proposed license amendment will not significantly increase 
the probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents, 
since most previously analyzed accidents can no longer occur and the 
probability or consequences of the few remaining are unaffected by 
the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    [Response: No.]
    The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the 
plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed changes 
have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of 
irradiated fuel, or in the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on 
the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The proposed EAL 
scheme is for the plant's defueled condition. There is no impact on 
the prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of accidents previously 
evaluated. Accidents cannot result in different or more adverse 
failure modes or accidents than those previously evaluated because 
the reactors are permanently shut down and defueled and SONGS is no 
longer authorized to operate the reactors.
    The proposed EAL scheme does not make changes to the systems 
credited in the remaining relevant accident analyses. No changes are 
being made to parameters within which the plant is normally operated 
or in the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigating actions, 
and no new failure modes are being introduced or new accident 
precursors that could initiate a new or different kind of accident. 
Proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and 
activities such as dose assessments to determine any radiological 
releases and provisions for communications and coordination with 
offsite organizations will be maintained.
    The proposed amendment does not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation or new accident precursors, does not involve any physical 
alterations to plant configuration, or make changes to system 
setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    [Response: No.]
    The proposed amendment to the EAL scheme will provide thresholds 
for initiation of Emergency Planning actions that are commensurate 
with the permanently defueled condition of the station. The proposed 
amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, 
configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect 
either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety function 
or its design and licensing bases.
    Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for SONGS no longer 
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of 
fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), 
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor 
operation is no longer possible. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design 
basis analyses that impact the applicable postulated accidents.
    The proposed changes to the SONGS EAL scheme do not impact the 
safe storage of irradiated fuel. The revised scheme does not affect 
any requirements for SSCs credited in the remaining analyses of 
applicable postulated accidents; and as such, does not significantly 
reduce the margin of safety associated with these accident analyses. 
Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor are no 
longer possible because the reactor is permanently shut down and 
defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the reactors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Walker A. Matthews, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
California 91770.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

[[Page 77049]]

Southern California Edison Company (SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50-206, 
50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 
(SONGS), Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation, San Diego County, California
    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 21, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14092A314 and ML14345A338.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the SONGS facility operating license by revising the emergency 
plan consistent with the SONGS permanent shutdown and defueled status. 
On June 12, 2013, SCE submitted a certification of permanent cessation 
of power operations pursuant to the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that 
SCE had decided to permanently cease power operation of SONGS effective 
June 7, 2013. With the docketing of subsequent certifications for 
permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessels pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(1)(ii) on June 28, 2013, and July 22, 2013, for Units 3 and 2, 
respectively, the 10 CFR part 50 license for SONGS, Units 2 and 3, no 
longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention 
of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). 
SONGS, Unit 1, was permanently shut down in 1993 and is in the 
decommissioning phase. The proposed changes to the emergency plan are 
being submitted to the NRC for approval prior to implementation, as 
required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, 
Section IV.B.2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS Units 2 and 3 have 
permanently ceased operation (Reference 6.5.1). The proposed 
amendment would replace the Radiological Emergency Response Plan 
(RERP) with the Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) to 
correspond to the reduced scope of remaining accidents and events. 
The proposed changes discontinue offsite emergency planning 
activities and reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning as a 
result of the substantially lower onsite and offsite radiological 
consequences of accidents possible at SONGS. The proposed amendment 
is consistent with the criterion discussed in Interim Staff Guidance 
[ISG] NSIR/DPR [Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response/
Division of Preparedness & Response]-ISG-02, ``Emergency Planning 
Exemption Requests for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants.''
    The proposed amendment has no effect on structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC 
to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not 
increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC.
    The spent fuel pool and its support systems are used for spent 
fuel storage. It is estimated that SONGS will remain in a wet fuel 
storage configuration for approximately five years. In this 
condition, the spectrum of postulated accidents is much smaller than 
for an operational plant. As a result of the certifications 
submitted by SCE in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the 
consequent removal of authorization to operate the reactor or to 
place or retain fuel in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios postulated in the SONGS 
Final Safety Analysis Report are no longer possible. The proposed 
amendment continues to maintain the effectiveness for coping with 
radiological emergencies that are postulated to occur in the 
permanently defueled condition. The ability to identify, assess, and 
mitigate these remaining events will be maintained such that there 
will be no significant increase in the consequences of any event.
    The proposed license amendment will not significantly increase 
the probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents, 
since most previously analyzed accidents can no longer occur and the 
probability or consequences of the few remaining are unaffected by 
the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the 
plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed changes 
discontinue offsite emergency planning activities and reduce the 
scope of onsite emergency planning as a result of the substantially 
lower onsite and offsite radiological consequences of accidents 
possible at SONGS. The proposed changes have no impact on facility 
SSCs affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the 
methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of 
irradiated fuel itself. The SONGS PDEP is for the plant's defueled 
condition. There is no impact on the prevention, diagnosis, or 
mitigation [of] accidents previously evaluated. Accidents cannot 
result in different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than 
those previously evaluated because the reactors are permanently shut 
down and defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the 
reactors.
    The proposed PDEP does not make changes to the systems credited 
in the remaining relevant accident analyses. The proposed PDEP 
continues to require proper control and monitoring of safety 
significant parameters and activities and continues to require dose 
assessments to determine any radiological releases and to maintain 
prompt communications with offsite organizations.
    The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms 
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers 
for defueled plants (i.e., fuel cladding and spent fuel pool 
inventory). Since extended operation in a defueled condition is the 
only operation currently allowed, and therefore bounded by the 
existing analyses, such a condition does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident.
    The proposed amendment does not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation or new accident precursors, does not involve any physical 
alterations to plant configuration, or make changes to system 
setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's 
design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not 
affect either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety 
function or its design and licensing bases.
    Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for SONGS no longer 
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of 
fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), 
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor 
operation is no longer possible. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the remaining 
design basis analyses.
    The proposed changes that are limited to the SONGS PDEP do not 
impact the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The revised PDEP does 
not affect any requirements for SSCs credited in the remaining 
analyses of applicable postulated accidents; and as such, does not 
significantly reduce the margin of safety associated with these 
accident analyses. Postulated design basis accidents involving the 
reactor are no longer possible because the reactor is permanently 
shut down and defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized to operate 
the reactors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.

[[Page 77050]]

    Attorney for licensee: Walker A. Matthews, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
California 91770.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: November 12, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS Accession No. ML14324A217.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment includes a 
revision to the site's Radiation Emergency Plan to relocate the 
Technical Support Center.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the VCSNS emergency plan does not impact 
the physical function of plant structures, systems, or components 
(SSC) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The 
proposed changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or 
precursors, nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do 
not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended 
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within 
assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative 
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected 
by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation. 
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change to the location of 
the TSC is not an initiator of any accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission 
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of 
radiation dose to the public. The proposed change does not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications or the 
operating license. The proposed change does not involve a change in 
the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be 
affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed change 
will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will 
not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed change will 
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design 
basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that 
respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a 
safe shutdown condition. The emergency plan will continue to 
activate an emergency response commensurate with the extent of 
degradation of plant safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Duke Energy Progress, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric 
Plant, Unit 2, Hartsville, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 10, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 8, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection 
System,'' to add a Note that does not require the surveillance be 
performed until 12 hours after decreasing the reactor coolant system 
cold temperature to less than or equal to 350 degrees Fahrenheit, which 
is the temperature when the Low Temperature Overpressure Protection 
operability controlled by TS 3.4.12 is credited. In addition, the Note 
and Frequency requirements are being revised to be consistent with 
NUREG-1431, Revision 3, ``Standard Technical Specifications 
Westinghouse Plants,'' dated June 2004.
    Date of issuance: October 15, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 238. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14260A380; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 24, 2014 (79 FR 
35803). The supplemental letter dated April 8, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as

[[Page 77051]]

originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 15, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of application for amendment: January 28, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 16, 2013, May 12, 2014, and 
August 12, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements related to direct current (DC) 
electrical systems as specified in TS Limiting Condition for Operation 
(LCO) 3.8.2.3, ``DC Distribution--Operating,'' and LCO 3.8.2.4, ``DC 
Distribution--Shutdown.'' A new TS LCO 3.8.6, ``Battery Parameters,'' 
is created, and a new ``Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program'' is 
now required under TS Section 6.5, ``Administrative Controls--Programs 
and Manuals.'' These changes are consistent with the NRC-approved 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-500, Revision 
2, ``DC Electrical Rewrite--Update to TSTF-360.'' The availability of 
this TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on September 
1, 2011 (76 FR 54510).
    Date of issuance: December 4, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 297. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14302A015; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 30, 2013 (78 FR 
25313). The supplemental letters dated September 16, 2013, May 12, 
2014, and August 12, 2014, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 4, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of application for amendment: December 17, 2013, as 
supplemented by letter dated May 13, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the full 
implementation date (Milestone 8) of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 
and 2, Cyber Security Plan.
    Date of issuance: December 8, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately upon issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--251; Unit 2--298. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14322A206, documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6: The 
amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR 
32763). The supplemental letter dated May 13, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated July 2, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and 
revised the associated Physical Protection license condition. The CSP 
Milestone 8 full implementation date was changed from December 15, 
2014, to June 30, 2016.
    Date of issuance: December 1, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 308. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14202A372; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 
25901). The supplemental letter dated July 2, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: December 30, 2013, as 
supplemented by letter dated May 22, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the date of 
the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 and the 
associated existing facility operating license condition regarding full 
implementation of the Cyber Security Plan. The CSP and associated 
implementation schedule was previously approved by the NRC staff by 
letter dated July 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111801243).
    Date of issuance: December 8, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14237A144; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR 
21297). The supplement letter dated May 22, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.

[[Page 77052]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, 
Ogle County, Illinois
    Date of application for amendment: April 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML14111A257).
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised specific 
Required Action Notes in the Braidwood and Byron Technical 
Specification (TS) Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 that are no longer 
applicable following installation and implementation of the bypass test 
instrumentation modifications at the four Braidwood and Byron units. 
The change reflects the specific Functions that have bypass test 
capability installed and the specific Functions that do not have bypass 
test capability installed.
    Date of issuance: December 7, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 180/186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML14239A427; documents related to these amendments 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revised the TSs and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
42546).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a SE dated December 7, 2014.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota; and Northern 
States Power Company (NSPC)--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, 
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: November 27, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 5, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the date of 
the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 and the 
existing operating license Physical Protection license condition 
regarding full implementation of the CSP. The CSP and associated 
implementation schedule were previously approved by the NRC staff in 
letters dated July 29, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML11186A992 and 
ML11187A231).
    Date of issuance: November 28, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: MNGP--186; PINGP, Unit 1--212; Unit 2--200. A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14239A257; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-22, DPR-42, and DPR-60: These 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45493).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2012, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 25, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduce the reactor 
steam dome pressure specified within TS 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs 
[Safety Limits].'' This change resolves a condition reported by General 
Electric (GE) in accordance with 10 CFR part 21, ``Reporting of Defects 
and Noncompliance,'' concerning a potential for SSES to momentarily 
violate TS 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 during a Pressure Regulator Failure 
Maximum Demand (Open) Pressure Regulator Failure Open transient.
    Date of issuance: December 8, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 261 for Unit 1 and 242 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14321A008; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2013, (78 FR 
19754). The supplemental letter dated September 25, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of December 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-29906 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P