[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 520-532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30966]



[[Page 520]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0279]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from December 11 to December 24, 2014. The last 
biweekly notice was published on December 23, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be filed by February 5, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0279. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0279 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0279.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain 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 in this notice (if 
that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a 
document is referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0279 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

[[Page 521]]

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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 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

[[Page 522]]

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 copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: September 2, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14261A091.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise or add technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements 
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System 
(ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR)/Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, 
the Containment Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core Isolation 
Cooling (RCIC) System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated 
gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised 
verification. The changes are being made to address the concerns 
discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in 
Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray 
Systems.'' The proposed TS changes are based on NRC-approved TS Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, 
Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML13053A075). The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for 
TSTF-523, Revision 2, for plant-specific adoption using the 
consolidated line item improvement process, in the Federal Register on 
January 15, 2014 (79 FR 2700).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), the 
Shutdown Cooling (SDC), Residual Heat Removal (RHR), and the Reactor 
Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Systems are not rendered inoperable 
due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit 
performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the 
subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure 
that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their 
assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas 
accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of

[[Page 523]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the RHR, SDC, and the RCIC Systems are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, 
the proposed change does not impose any new or different 
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the RHR, SDC, and the RCIC Systems are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The 
proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in 
order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their 
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive 
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the 
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability 
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there 
are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety 
limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely 
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: June 25, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 7, 2013, February 13, July 16, and December 9, 
2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML13176A405, ML13220A008, ML14044A059, ML14199A101, and ML14343A581, 
respectively.
    Description of amendment request: This license amendment was 
originally noticed in the Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 
15148). This no significant hazards consideration determination and 
opportunity for hearing is being reissued in its entirety to include 
additional revisions to the PNP Site Emergency Plan (SEP). 
Specifically, the amendment would modify staffing of the radiation 
protection (RP) technicians, increase certain Emergency Response 
Organization (ERO) positions with 30-minute staff augmentation response 
times to 60-minute response times, and would add monitoring teams as 
augmented responders.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect previously analyzed event 
probabilities or any parameters associated with plant operations. 
The changes affect the site response to radiological emergencies 
under the PNP SEP. The effect of the proposed changes on the ability 
of the ERO to responds adequately to radiological emergencies has 
been evaluated, and the proposed changes would not significantly 
affect the ability of the site to perform the required SEP tasks.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no effect on the plant design or on 
the normal operation of the plant, and do not affect how systems and 
components are operated under emergency conditions. The proposed 
changes affect the site response to radiological emergencies under 
the PNP SEP. The changes do not significantly affect the ability of 
the site to respond to radiological emergencies and perform required 
ERO functions, and do not affect the plant operating procedures 
which are performed by plant staff during plant conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect plant design, method of 
plant operation, or any protective boundaries. 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 
10 CFR 50 Appendix E establish emergency planning standards and 
requirements for adequate staffing, satisfactory performance of key 
functional areas and critical tasks, and timely augmentation of the 
response capability. Since the PNP SEP was originally developed, 
there have been improvements in the technology used to support the 
SEP functions and the capabilities of onsite personnel. The proposed 
changes do not significantly affect the ability of the ERO to 
perform required SEP tasks. Thus, the proposed change does not 
adversely affect the ability to meet the emergency planning 
standards as described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in 10 
CFR 50 Appendix E.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: November 12, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14316A370.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would approve the 
licensee's equivalent margin analysis, performed in accordance with 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50, Appendix G, 
which demonstrates that materials predicted to possess Charpy upper 
shelf energy values less than 50 ft-lbs will provide margins of safety 
against fracture, equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section 
XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:


[[Page 524]]


    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This amendment request is for approval of an equivalent margins 
analysis (EMA) in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, Section IV, 
``Fracture Toughness Requirements.'' The EMA is to demonstrate that 
reactor vessel beltline material predicted to possess Charpy Upper 
Shelf Energy (USE) values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins of 
safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G 
of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
    The EMA does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident, and does not result in 
physical alteration of a plant structure, system or component (SSC) 
or installation of new or different types of equipment. The EMA does 
not affect plant operation or any design function. The EMA verifies 
the capability of a [SSC] to perform a design function. Further, the 
EMA does not significantly affect the probability of accidents 
previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR), or cause a change to any of the does analyses associated 
with the UFSAR accidents because accident mitigation functions would 
remain unchanged.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The amendment request is for approval of an EMA in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, Section IV. The EMA is to demonstrate 
that reactor vessel beltline material predicted to possess Charpy 
USE values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins of safety against 
fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI of 
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The EMA does not change 
the design function, operation, or integrity of the reactor vessel, 
and does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-
related systems. No physical plant alterations are made as a result 
of the proposed change. The EMA will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident due to credible new failure 
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in 
the design and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The amendment request is for approval of an EMA in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, Section IV. The EMA is to demonstrate 
that reactor vessel beltline material predicted to possess Charpy 
USE values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins of safety against 
fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI of 
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. As such, there is no 
significant reduction in the margin of safety as a result of the 
EMA. No design bases or safety limits are exceeded or altered due to 
the EMA. The margin of safety associated with the acceptance 
criteria of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR is 
unchanged. The proposed change has no effect on the availability, 
operability, or performance of the safety-related systems and 
components.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14330A246.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications for reactor coolant system (RCS) heatup, 
cooldown, and inservice leak hydrostatic test pressure/temperature (P/
T) limitations, as well as the setpoints for the low temperature 
overpressure protection (LTOP) system, to reflect unit operation to a 
maximum of 54 effective full power years (EFPYs). The current limits 
are applicable up to 31 EFPYs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will revise the heatup, cooldown, and 
inservice leak hydrostatic test limitations for the Reactor Coolant 
System (RCS) to a maximum of 54 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G. This is the end of the period 
of extended operation. Further, the proposed amendment revises the 
enable temperature and the lift setpoint for Low Temperature 
Overpressurization Protection (LTOP) requirements to reflect the 
revised P/T limits of the reactor vessel. The P/T limits were 
developed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 
G, utilizing the analytical methods and flaw acceptance criteria of 
Topical Report BAW-10046A, Revision 2, and American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) [Boiler and Pressure Vessel] Code, 
Section XI, Appendix G. These methods and criteria are the 
previously NRC approved standards for the preparation of P/T limits. 
Updating the P/T limits for additional EFPYs maintains the level of 
assurance that reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity will be 
maintained, as specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix G.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, 
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and 
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered 
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in 
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents are not affected.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes incorporate methodologies that either have 
been approved or accepted for use by the NRC (provided that any 
conditions/limitations are satisfied). The P/T limits and LTOP 
limits will provide the same level of protection to the reactor 
coolant pressure boundary as was previously evaluated. Reactor 
coolant pressure boundary integrity will continue to be maintained 
in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, and the assumed accident 
performance of plant structures, systems and components will not be 
affected. These changes do not involve any physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed), and installed equipment is not being operated in a new 
or different manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the function of the reactor 
coolant pressure boundary or its response during plant transients. 
By calculating the P/T limits and associated LTOP limits using NRC-
approved methodology, adequate margins of safety relating to reactor 
coolant pressure boundary integrity are maintained. The proposed 
changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are

[[Page 525]]

determined. These changes will ensure that protective actions are 
initiated and the operability requirements for equipment assumed to 
operate for accident mitigation are not affected.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
    Date of amendment request: September 24, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 11, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14273A012 and ML14349A645, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications 
(TSs). The proposed changes will revise License Condition 2.K and 
delete the functional unit ``Cold Leg Injection, P-15'' from TS 3.3.2, 
``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, along with NRC edits in square brackets, is presented 
below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change deletes from the TS functional unit 10.d 
``Cold Leg Injection, P-15,'' which would prevent opening of the 
high-head safety injection valves until reactor coolant system 
pressure decreases below the P-15 setpoint. This feature has not 
been installed in the plant, and the TS requirements for permissive 
P-15 have not been implemented. Eliminating a feature that has not 
been implemented in the plant is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed 
change has no impact on equipment required to be operable for 
accident mitigation; consequently, the change does not significantly 
increase the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new 
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures 
are introduced as a result of the proposed change because no 
physical changes are made to the plant. Therefore, the proposed 
change to the TS does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated[.]
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The ability of any operable SSC [structure, system or component] 
to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the 
proposed change. The proposed change does not alter any safety 
analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings, or method of operating the plant. The change does not 
adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of 
equipment credited in the safety analyses.
    The Seabrook analysis for inadvertent operation of the emergency 
core cooling system credits operator to terminate safety injection 
flow. The addition of permissive P-15 to the plant design and TS was 
initiated to increase the time available for the operators to 
terminate an inadvertent safety injection actuation. However, the 
amendment is still within the implementation period and the TS 
change and associated design change have not been implemented. 
Currently, without the P-15 function, the operators are capable of 
terminating safety injection flow within the assumed time limits, 
and performance meets Seabrook's administrative limit for completing 
time critical actions within 80% of the required time.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney, Florida 
Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: October 30, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14303A448.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by 
departing from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 
(and corresponding Combined License Appendix C information) and Tier 2 
material by making changes to specify the use of latching control 
relays in lieu of breakers to open the control rod drive mechanism 
(CRDM) motor generator (MG) set generator field on a diverse actuation 
system (DAS) signal.
    Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the licensee 
also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD 
Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to use field control relays in lieu of field 
circuit breakers to de-energize the CRDM MG Set excitation field 
does not result in a change to the basic MG Set design function, 
which is to supply reliable electrical power to the CRDMs while 
providing a trip function on a DAS signal, allowing the control rods 
to drop. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is not adversely 
affected. No safety-related structure, system, or component (SSC) or 
function is adversely affected. The change does not involve nor 
interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of 
events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in 
the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] are not affected. 
Because the change maintains the CRDM MG set trip function used to 
mitigate an accident, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in 
the UFSAR are not affected.
    Therefore, there is no significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There is no safety-related SSC or function adversely affected by 
this proposed change to use control relays instead of breakers to 
de-energize the CRDM MG set generator field on demand. This proposed 
change does not change any equipment qualification or

[[Page 526]]

fission product barrier. The change does not result in a new failure 
mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or 
safety-related equipment. This activity will not allow for a new 
fission product release path, result in a new fission product 
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that would 
result in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, this activity does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    There is no safety-related SSC or function adversely affected by 
this proposed change to use relays instead of breakers to control 
the CRDM MG set generator field. The function to trip the MG set 
generator field on a DAS signal, allowing the control rods to drop, 
is not adversely affected by the use of relays as the device to de-
energize the generator field. The proposed change does not affect 
any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, safety 
analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the requested change, thus, no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14261A360.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
would depart from VCSNS Units 2 and 3 plant-specific Design Control 
Document (DCD) Tier 2* material contained within the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) by relocating fire area rated fire 
barriers due to changes to the layout of the switchgear rooms and 
office area in the turbine building.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed reconfiguration of the turbine building switchgear 
rooms, the control system cabinet room, the new electrical equipment 
room, and the associated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 
(HVAC) room would not adversely affect any safety-related equipment 
or function. The modified configuration will maintain the fire 
protection function (i.e., barrier) as evaluated in Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Appendix 9A, thus, the probability of 
a spread of a fire from these areas is not significantly increased. 
The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the fire 
protection analysis results are not adversely affected. The proposed 
changes affect nonsafety-related electrical switchgear and do not 
involve any accident, initiating event, or component failure; thus, 
the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not 
affected. The proposed changes do not interface with or affect any 
system containing radioactivity or affect any radiological material 
release source terms; thus, the radiological releases in the 
accident analyses are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the fire zones in the turbine building 
related to the turbine building switchgear rooms, the control system 
cabinet room, the new electrical equipment room, the associated HVAC 
room, and stairway will maintain the fire barrier fire protection 
function as evaluated in the UFSAR Appendix 9A. The changes to the 
fire areas and fire zones do not affect the function of any safety-
related structure, system, or component, and thus, do not introduce 
a new failure mode. The affected turbine building areas and 
equipment do not interface with any safety-related equipment or any 
equipment associated with radioactive material and, thus, do not 
create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed reconfiguration of the fire zones associated with 
the turbine building switchgear rooms, the electrical equipment 
room, and the associated HVAC room will maintain the fire barrier 
fire protection function as evaluated in the UFSAR Appendix 9A. The 
fire barriers and equipment in the turbine building do not interface 
with any safety-related equipment or affect any safety-related 
function. The changes to the area barriers associated with the 
turbine building switchgear and associated HVAC continue to comply 
with the existing design codes and regulatory criteria, and do not 
affect any safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50-206, 
50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 
(SONGS), Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation, San Diego County, California
    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 21, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14092A249 and ML14297A016, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the SONGS facility operating license by revising the emergency 
action level (EAL) scheme consistent with the SONGS permanent shutdown 
and defueled status. On June 12, 2013, SCE submitted a certification of 
permanent cessation of power operations pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that SCE had decided to permanently cease power 
operation of SONGS effective June 7, 2013. With the docketing of 
subsequent certifications for permanent removal of fuel from the 
reactor vessels pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii) on June 28, 2013, 
and July 22, 2013, for Units 3 and 2, respectively, the 10 CFR part 50 
license for SONGS Units 2 and 3 no longer authorizes operation of the 
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as 
specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). SONGS Unit 1 was permanently shut down 
in 1993 and is in the decommissioning phase. The proposed changes to 
the EAL scheme are being submitted to the NRC for approval prior to 
implementation, as required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and

[[Page 527]]

10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.B.2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    [Response: No.]
    San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 have 
permanently ceased operation. The proposed amendment would replace 
the existing EAL scheme with an EAL scheme that reflects the 
permanently shut-down status of the plant. The proposed Emergency 
Action Level Scheme is based on NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 99-
01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-
Passive Reactors,'' Appendix C for permanently defueled stations. 
The proposed amendment has no effect on structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC 
to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not 
increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC.
    The spent fuel pool and its support systems are used for spent 
fuel storage. It is expected that SONGS will remain in a wet fuel 
storage configuration for approximately five years. In this 
condition, the spectrum of postulated accidents is much smaller than 
for an operational plant. As a result of the certifications 
submitted by SCE in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the 
consequent removal of authorization to operate the reactor or to 
place or retain fuel in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios postulated in the SONGS 
Final Safety Analysis Report are no longer possible, and there is no 
significant increase in consequences of previously postulated 
accidents.
    The proposed license amendment will not significantly increase 
the probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents, 
since most previously analyzed accidents can no longer occur and the 
probability or consequences of the few remaining are unaffected by 
the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    [Response: No.]
    The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the 
plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed changes 
have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of 
irradiated fuel, or in the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on 
the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The proposed EAL 
scheme is for the plant's defueled condition. There is no impact on 
the prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of accidents previously 
evaluated. Accidents cannot result in different or more adverse 
failure modes or accidents than those previously evaluated because 
the reactors are permanently shut down and defueled and SONGS is no 
longer authorized to operate the reactors.
    The proposed EAL scheme does not make changes to the systems 
credited in the remaining relevant accident analyses. No changes are 
being made to parameters within which the plant is normally operated 
or in the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigating actions, 
and no new failure modes are being introduced or new accident 
precursors that could initiate a new or different kind of accident. 
Proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and 
activities such as dose assessments to determine any radiological 
releases and provisions for communications and coordination with 
offsite organizations will be maintained.
    The proposed amendment does not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation or new accident precursors, does not involve any physical 
alterations to plant configuration, or make changes to system 
setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    [Response: No.]
    The proposed amendment to the EAL scheme will provide thresholds 
for initiation of Emergency Planning actions that are commensurate 
with the permanently defueled condition of the station. The proposed 
amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, 
configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect 
either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety function 
or its design and licensing bases.
    Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for SONGS no longer 
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of 
fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), 
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor 
operation is no longer possible. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design 
basis analyses that impact the applicable postulated accidents.
    The proposed changes to the SONGS EAL scheme do not impact the 
safe storage of irradiated fuel. The revised scheme does not affect 
any requirements for SSCs credited in the remaining analyses of 
applicable postulated accidents; and as such, does not significantly 
reduce the margin of safety associated with these accident analyses. 
Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor are no 
longer possible because the reactor is permanently shut down and 
defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the reactors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Walker A. Matthews, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
California 91770.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14325A835.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
the Combined Licenses (COLs) changing the description and scope of the 
Initial Test Program. Because this proposed change requires a departure 
from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 
Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption 
from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is related to the conduct of the Initial 
Test Program. The proposed changes are made in compliance with the 
applicable regulatory guides, are only related to the general 
aspects of how the program is executed and do not change any 
technical content for preoperational or startup tests. No changes 
are made to any design aspect of the plant.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is related to the conduct of the Initial 
Test Program. The proposed changes are made in compliance with the 
applicable regulatory guides, are

[[Page 528]]

only related to the general aspects of how the program is executed 
and do not change any technical content for preoperational or 
startup tests. These changes do not affect the design or analyzed 
operation of any system.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is related to the conduct of the Initial 
Test Program. The proposed changes are made in compliance with the 
applicable regulatory guides, are only related to the general 
aspects of how the program is executed and do not change any 
technical content for preoperational or startup tests. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
    Date of application for amendments: January 28, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.12. Specifically, the change removes a reference 
to Condition E when entering Condition G.
    Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date 
of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--275 and Unit 2--255. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14332A790; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register April 1, 2014 (79 FR 
18330).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: May 28, 2013, as supplemented by letter 
dated May 8, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' to 
reduce the reactor dome pressure from 785 pounds per square inch gauge 
(psig) to 685 psig. These changes resolve a calculational defect 
reported under 10 CFR part 21 concerning a potential to momentarily 
violate the reactor safety limits in TSs 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 during a 
Pressure Regulator Failure-Open transient as reported by General 
Electric Nuclear Energy.
    Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 182. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14192A831; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 6, 2013 (78 FR 
47788). The supplemental letter dated May 8, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: November 4, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Sections 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) 
System,'' 3.6.4.7, ``Fuel Building Ventilation System--Fuel Handling,'' 
3.7.2, ``Control Room Fresh Air (CRFA) System,'' and 5.5.7, 
``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).'' Specifically, the 
amendment eliminates the operability and Surveillance Requirements for 
the heaters in the safety-related charcoal filter trains in those 
systems, and revises certain charcoal test specifications.
    Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 183. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

[[Page 529]]

Accession No. ML14225A444; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR 
12243).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana 
Parish, Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to 
the facility operating license for RBS. The change revised the date for 
implementation of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) 
Implementation Schedule and the existing license conditions in the 
facility operating license. Milestone 8 of the CSP implementation 
schedule concerns the full implementation of the CSP.
    Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 184. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14304A181; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38576).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247 and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Westchester 
County, New York
    Date of amendment request: January 30, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 12, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment): The amendments revised the Cyber 
Security Plan Milestone 8 full implementation date and the existing 
Physical Protection license conditions by extending the full 
implementation date to June 30, 2016.
    Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 57, 279, and 254. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14316A526; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-5, DPR-26, and DPR-64: The 
amendment revised the Provisional Operating License for Unit No. 1 and 
the Facility Operating Licenses for Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 
25899). The supplemental letter dated June 12, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station (Pilgrim), Plymouth County, Massachusetts
    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated July 1, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Pilgrim 
operating license by modifying the Physical Protection license 
condition, related to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP). The CSP Milestone 
8 full implementation date was changed from December 15, 2014, to June 
30, 2016.
    Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 241. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14336A661; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment 
revised the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45487). The supplemental letter dated July 1, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont
    Date of amendment request: October 31, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 24, 2014, July 16, 2014, and December 5, 2014.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised and removed 
certain requirements from the Section 6.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' 
portions of the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications that are no 
longer applicable to the facility in a permanently defueled condition.
    Date of Issuance: December 22, 2014.
    Effective date: The license amendment becomes effective upon the 
licensee's submittal of the certifications required by 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
    Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14217A072; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 19, 2014 (79 
FR 9494). The supplemental letters dated April 24, July 16, and 
December 5, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
    Date of amendment request: August 4, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to 
the

[[Page 530]]

facility operating license for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 
3. The change revised the date for implementation of Milestone 8 of the 
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule and the existing 
license conditions in the facility operating license. Milestone 8 of 
the CSP implementation schedule concerns the full implementation of the 
CSP.
    Date of issuance: December 10, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 241. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14321A713; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR 
60518).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 10, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi
    Date of application for amendment: December 19, 2013, as 
supplemented by letter dated June 11, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to 
the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 facility operating license to 
revise the date for implementation of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security 
Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule and the existing license conditions 
in the facility operating license. Milestone 8 of the CSP 
implementation schedule concerns the full implementation of the CSP.
    Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 200. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14311A479; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38576). The supplemental letter dated June 11, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353, and 72-65, 
Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-219 and 72-15, 
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
171, 50-277, 50-278, and 72-29, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 
Units 1, 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-289 and 50-320, Three 
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Dauphin County, 
Pennsylvania
    Date of application for amendments: October 30, 2013, as 
supplemented by letter dated June 13, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Emergency Plan definition of Annual Training from ``Retraining is 
performed on an annual basis, which is defined as every 12-months + 3 
months (25% grace period),'' to ``Retraining is performed once per year 
not to exceed 18-months between training sessions.''
    Date of issuance: December 24, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 212, 173, 283, 12, 294, 297, and 283. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14226A940; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39, NPF-85, DPR-16, 
DPR-12, DPR-44, DPR-56, DPR-50, and DPR-73: The amendments revised the 
Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 
18333). The supplemental letter dated June 13, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 24, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: January 10, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 27, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
schedule for full implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP) and 
Paragraph 2.D of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and 
DPR-74 for CNP, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The CSP and associated 
implementation schedule for CNP, Units 1 and 2 was previously approved 
by NRC staff letter dated July 28, 2011, as supplemented by changes 
approved in a letter dated December 13, 2012
    Date of issuance: December 18, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 325 and 308. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14317A551; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38579). The supplemental letter dated May 27, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 531]]

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated July 28, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the CNS Cyber 
Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth 
in the CSP Implementation Schedule. The amendment also revised the 
physical protection license condition in the renewed facility operating 
license.
    Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14323A644; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the renewed facility operating license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38580). The supplemental letter dated July 28, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 2.5, ``Steam and Feedwater Systems,'' to allow a 7-day 
completion time for restoration of the turbine-driven auxiliary 
feedwater pump if it becomes inoperable following a refueling outage 
and if Mode 2 has not yet been entered, based on Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-340, Revision 3.
    Date of issuance: December 22, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 278. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14328A814; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the license and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38592).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated December 22, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates the 
operability and surveillance requirements for flood protection from the 
Technical Specifications to the Technical Requirements Manual.
    Date of issuance: December 18, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 196. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14108A399; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR 
21299).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: December 24, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 23, 2014, and August 18, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the Hope 
Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 
Nos. 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation 
date, as set forth in the CSP implementation schedule and the existing 
License Condition 2.E in the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses NPF-
57, DPR-70, and DPR-75.
    Date of issuance: December 23, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 197, 306, and 288. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14323A974; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2014 (79 
FR 53461). The supplemental letters dated June 23, 2014, and August 18, 
2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: December 4, 2013 and September 8, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised various 
technical specifications (TS) to upgrade the VCSNS TS to improve 
operator usability by more closely aligning the TS with the latest form 
and content of standard TS.
    Date of issuance: November 12, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 20. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14265A072; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 
18334).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 532]]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of application for amendments: January 16, 2014, as 
supplemented by letters dated May 2 and July 22, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.7.5, Control Room Air Conditioning System, to provide 
new Required Actions (RAs) for one, two, or three main control room AC 
subsystems inoperable, and make other required corresponding changes.
    Date of issuance: December 10, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--270 and Unit 2--214. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14279A261; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR 
49110). The supplemental letter dated May 2 and July 22, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 10, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
    Date of application for amendments: December 21, 2012, as 
supplemented by letter dated June 21, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Renewed 
Operating Licenses to incorporate a degraded voltage protection 
modification schedule into the Hatch licenses.
    Date of issuance: December 16, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--271 and Unit 2--215. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14328A323; documents related 
to this these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed 
with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78 
FR 54289).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of December 2014.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-30966 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P