[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20020-20031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08579]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0088]


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 March 19, 2015 to April 1, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on March 31, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 14, 2015. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0088. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected].
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Baxter, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0088 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0088.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0088, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter 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 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

[[Page 20021]]

amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its 
final determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should 
circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or 
shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to 
the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it 
will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the 
Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The 
Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request 
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing 
or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide 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

[[Page 20022]]

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able 
to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: February 2, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15036A486.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify several Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for 
Operation (LCOs) and Surveillance Requirements (SRs) to allow secondary 
containment access openings to be opened intermittently under 
administrative control.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions 
during which the secondary containment LCO and SRs are not met. The 
secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes are no 
different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the 
existing 4-hour allowed outage time for an inoperable reactor 
enclosure secondary containment. As a result, the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the protection 
system design, create

[[Page 20023]]

new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed 
changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, and no 
new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, 
there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different 
kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions 
during which the secondary containment LCO and SRs are not met. 
Temporary conditions in which the secondary containment vacuum is 
below the required limit are acceptable provided the conditions do 
not affect the ability of the Standby Gas Treatment System to 
establish the required secondary containment vacuum. This condition 
is incorporated in the proposed changes by requiring the condition 
to be momentary or under administrative control such that the 
conditions equivalent to the design condition can be quickly 
restored should secondary containment vacuum be required. Therefore, 
the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected. 
The allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment 
access door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not 
affect the safety function of the secondary containment as the doors 
are promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the 
secondary containment boundary.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President 
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Doulas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: February 23, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15055A506.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify a Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
and certain Surveillance Requirements (SRs) to allow secondary 
containment access openings to be opened intermittently under 
administrative control.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions 
during which the secondary containment LCO and certain SRs are not 
met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes 
are no different than the consequences of an accident while 
utilizing the existing 4-hour Completion Time for an inoperable 
secondary containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the protection 
system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of 
operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration 
of the plant; and no new or different kind of equipment will be 
installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could 
result in a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions 
during which the secondary containment LCO and certain SRs are not 
met. Temporary conditions in which the secondary containment is open 
is acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of 
the Standby Gas Treatment System to create a lower pressure in the 
secondary containment than in the outside environment if required. 
This condition is incorporated in the proposed changes by requiring 
the condition to be under administrative control such that the 
conditions equivalent to the design condition can be quickly 
restored should secondary containment vacuum be required. Therefore, 
the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected. 
The allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment door 
to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the 
safety function of the secondary containment as the doors are 
promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary 
containment boundary. The ability to open secondary containment 
access openings under administrative control, even if it means the 
secondary containment boundary is temporarily not intact, is 
acceptable due to the low probability of an event that requires 
secondary containment during the short time in which the secondary 
containment is open and the presence of administrative controls to 
rapidly close the opening.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President 
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
    Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 
50-306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14349A749.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments 
would revise the technical specification (TS) 3.3.3, ``EM [Event 
Monitoring] Instrumentation,'' to add the Steam Generator Water Level--
Narrow Range Instruments to Table 3.3.3-1. In addition, the amendments 
would revise Appendix B, ``Additional Condition,'' of the Renewed 
Operating License for each unit regarding implementation of License 
Amendment Nos. 206 (Unit 1) and 193 (Unit 2) for Alternative Source 
Term (AST), and removes two AST Additional Conditions for each unit 
that have been fulfilled.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided 
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 
which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator 
Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical

[[Page 20024]]

Specification Event Monitoring Instrumentation; revise license 
Additional Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 
range) Instrument implementation requirements from Alternative 
Source Term license amendment implementation; and remove Alternative 
Source Term amendment implementation Additional Conditions which 
have been fulfilled.
    The Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation 
is not an accident initiator and therefore addition of this 
instrumentation to the Technical Specifications does not increase 
the probability of an accident. Addition of this instrumentation to 
the Technical Specifications will bring it under the controls and 
testing requirements of the Technical Specifications. The proposed 
change will not increase the consequences of previously-evaluated 
accidents because the inclusion of these instruments in the 
technical specification improves their reliability to perform during 
a postulated accident. Therefore, the proposed Technical 
Specification changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The Alternative Source Term license amendment was previously 
analyzed and approved for implementation. The proposed Additional 
Condition revision to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 
range) Instrumentation implementation requirements from Alternative 
Source Term license amendment implementation clarifies 
implementation requirements and allows completion of implementation 
activities. Since the Alternative Source Term amendment was 
previously approved, this change does not increase the probability 
or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
    Removal of license Additional Conditions which have been 
fulfilled is an administrative change and thus this change does not 
increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated 
accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator 
Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical 
Specification Event Monitoring Instrumentation; revise license 
Additional Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 
range) Instrument implementation requirements from Alternative 
Source Term license amendment implementation; and remove Alternative 
Source Term amendment implementation Additional Conditions which 
have been fulfilled.
    The proposed Technical Specification changes and Additional 
Condition changes and the resulting instrument upgrades do not 
create new failure modes or mechanisms and do not change plant 
conditions from which some new material interaction may create a new 
or different type of accident. Thus, the Technical Specification and 
license Additional Condition changes do not create new failure modes 
or mechanisms, nor do they generate new accident precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed removal of fulfilled Additional Conditions is an 
administrative change and thus does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident.
    3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator 
Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical 
Specification Event Monitoring Instrumentation; revise license 
Additional Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 
range) Instrument implementation requirements from Alternative 
Source Term license amendment implementation; and remove Alternative 
Source Term amendment implementation Additional Conditions which 
have been fulfilled.
    Addition of this instrumentation to the Technical Specifications 
will bring it under the controls and testing requirements of the 
Technical Specifications. The proposed change will not increase the 
consequences of previously evaluated accidents because instrument 
upgrade and the inclusion of these instruments in the Technical 
Specifications improve their reliability to perform during a 
postulated accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The Alternative Source Term license amendment was previously 
analyzed and approved for implementation. The proposed Additional 
Condition revision to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow 
range) Instrumentation implementation requirements from Alternative 
Source Term license amendment implementation clarifies 
implementation requirements and allows completion of implementation 
activities. Since the Alternative Source Term [amendment] was 
previously approved, the changes proposed in this license amendment 
do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed removal of fulfilled Additional Conditions is 
administrative in nature and thus 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Unit 1, Salem County, New Jersey
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: December 9, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14343A926.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Public Service Electric and Gas Nuclear LLC (PSEG) 
Environmental Protection Plans (Non-Radiological), Appendix B to the 
renewed facility operating license (FOL) numbers DPR-70 and DPR-75 for 
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and the renewed FOL 
number NPF-57 for Hope Creek Generating Station. The proposed changes 
will simplify the Aquatic Monitoring section of Appendix B, modify the 
criteria for reporting Unusual or Important Environmental Events, and 
will clarify that PSEG Nuclear must adhere to the currently applicable 
Biological Opinion.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The [Environmental Protection Plan] EPP provides for protection 
of non-radiological environmental values during operation of the 
nuclear facility.
    The proposed changes do not have any impact on structures, 
systems and components (SSCs) of the plant, and no effect on plant 
operations. The proposed changes do not impact any accident 
initiators, or analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events. The proposed changes do not result in the addition 
or removal of any equipment.
    Therefore, these proposed changes do not represent a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not 
involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant

[[Page 20025]]

(i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods 
governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes will not 
impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident 
initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature.
    There is no change to any design basis, licensing basis or 
safety limit, and no change to any parameters; consequently no 
safety margins are affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    Based upon the above, PSEG concludes that the proposed change 
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set 
forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no 
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it 
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. 
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
South Carolina Electric & 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 25, 2014; as supplemented by 
letter dated March 13, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14268A388 and ML15072A306, respectively.
    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 
allowing changes to adjust the concrete wall thickness tolerances of 
four Nuclear Island walls found in Tier 1. In addition, the changes 
include an update to Tier 2 Subsection 3.8.3.6.1 to address the 
exceeded American Concrete Institute (ACI) 117 tolerance for the four 
affected walls.
    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.
    As indicated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
Subsection 3.8.3.1, the containment internal structures and 
associated modules support the reactor coolant system components and 
related piping systems and equipment. The increase in tolerance 
associated with the concrete thickness of four of these containment 
internal structure walls do not involve any accident initiating 
components or events, thus leaving the probabilities of an accident 
unaltered. The increased tolerance does not adversely affect any 
safety-related structures or equipment nor does the increased 
tolerance reduce the effectiveness of a radioactive material 
barrier. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect any safety-
related accident mitigating function served by the containment 
internal structures.
    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 tolerance increases do not change the performance 
of the affected containment internal structures. As demonstrated by 
the continued conformance to the applicable codes and standards 
governing the design of the structures, the walls with an increased 
concrete thickness tolerance continue to withstand the same effects 
as previously evaluated. There is no change to the design function 
of the affected modules and walls, and no new failure mechanisms are 
identified as the same types of accidents are presented to the walls 
before and after the change.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to increase the concrete thickness tolerance 
does not alter any design function, design analysis, or safety 
analysis input or result, and sufficient margin exists to justify a 
departure from the standards identified in the underlying Tier 2 
information with respect to the four affected walls. As such, 
because the system continues to respond to design basis accidents in 
the same manner as before without any changes to the expected 
response of the structure, no safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed 
changes. Accordingly, no safety margin is reduced by the increase of 
the wall concrete thickness tolerance.
    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 Burkhart.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: March 6, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15065A362.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment and 
exemption identify portions of the licensing basis that would more 
appropriately be classified as Tier 2, specifically the Tier 2* 
information on Fire Area Figures 9A-1, 9A-2, 9A-3, 9A-4, 9A-5, and 9A-
201 in the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report. With the reclassification, prior U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission approval would continue to be required for any 
safety significant changes to the Fire Area Figures because any 
revisions to that information would follow the Tier 2 change process 
provided in 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section VIII.B.5.
    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 would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 
2* information. The proposed amendment does not modify the design, 
construction, or operation of any plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs), nor does it change any procedures or method of 
control for any SSCs. Because the proposed amendment does not change 
the design, construction, or operation of any SSCs, it does not 
adversely affect any design function as described in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not affect the 
probability of an accident

[[Page 20026]]

previously evaluated. Similarly, because the proposed amendment does 
not alter the design or operation of the nuclear plant or any plant 
SSCs, the proposed amendment does not represent a change to the 
radiological effects of an accident, and therefore, does not involve 
an increase in the 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 would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 
2* information. The proposed amendment is not a modification, 
addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed 
amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the 
nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is 
the reclassification of information in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report. Because the proposed amendment only reclassifies 
information and does not change the design, construction, or 
operation of the nuclear plant or any plant operations, the 
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 would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 
2* information. The proposed amendment is not a modification, 
addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed 
amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the 
nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is 
the reclassification of information in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report.
    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 Burkhart.
ZionSolutions LLC, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear Power 
Station (Zion), Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2014, as supplemented on 
February 26, 2015. Publicly available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15005A336 and ML15061A230, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add 
License Condition 2.C (17) that approves the License Termination Plan 
(LTP) and establishes the criteria for determining when changes to the 
LTP require prior the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
approval.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    (1) Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The only remaining accident after fuel transfer is completed in 
January 2015 is the Radwaste handling accident. Calculations were 
performed to determine the dose at the Exclusion Area Boundary that 
would result from dropping a High Integrity Container in the former 
Interim Radwaste Storage Facility (IRSF) such that its entire 
contents of radioactive, dewatered resin escape. A fraction of the 
escaped resin is non mechanistically assumed to be released as 
airborne radioactivity and pass from the IRSF directly to the 
environment, resulting in off-site dose consequences. The solid-to-
aerosol release fraction is assumed to be the worst case non-
mechanistic, mechanically initiated release fraction. The whole body 
and inhalation dose at the closest point on the Exclusion Area 
Boundary from the IRSF are then calculated.
    The results of the radiological dose consequences for an 
accident involving the failure of a High Integrity Container show 
that the projected doses are insignificant in comparison to the 10 
CFR 100 guidelines, and are less than the EPA [Environmental 
Protection Agency] PAGs [protective action guidelines]. The 
projected dose at the Low Population Zone would be less than at the 
Exclusion Area Boundary and, since this accident involves an 
instantaneous release, it is also within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
    The proposed change does not affect the boundaries used to 
evaluate compliance with liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and has 
no impact on plant operations. The proposed changes do not have an 
adverse impact on the remaining decommissioning activities or any 
decommissioning related postulated accident consequences.
    The proposed changes related to the approval of the LTP do not 
affect operating procedures or administrative controls that have the 
function of preventing or mitigating the remaining decommissioning 
design basis accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    (2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The accident analysis for the facility related to 
decommissioning activities is described in the DSAR [defueled safety 
analysis report]. The requested license amendment is consistent with 
the plant activities described in the DSAR and PSDAR [post-shutdown 
decommissioning activities report]. Thus, the proposed changes do 
not affect the remaining plant systems, structures, or components in 
a way not previously evaluated.
    There are sections of the LTP that refer to the decommissioning 
activities still remaining (e.g.; removal of large components, 
structure removal, etc.). However, these activities are performed in 
accordance with approved work packages/steps and undergo a 10 CFR 
50.59 screening prior to initiation. The proposed amendment merely 
makes mention of these processes and does not bring about physical 
changes to the facility.
    Therefore, the facility conditions for which the remaining 
postulated accident has been evaluated is still valid and no new 
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures are 
introduced by this amendment. The system operating procedures are 
not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    (3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    The LTP is a plan for demonstrating compliance with the 
radiological criteria for license termination as provided in 10 CFR 
20.1402 (Reference 5). The margin of safety defined in the 
statements of consideration for the final rule on the Radiological 
Criteria for License Termination is described as the margin between 
the 100 mrem/yr public dose limit established in 10 CFR 20.1301 for 
licensed operation and the 25 mrem/yr dose limit to the average 
member of the critical group at a site considered acceptable for 
unrestricted use (one of the criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402). This 
margin of safety accounts for the potential effect of multiple 
sources of radiation exposure to the critical group. Since the 
License Termination Plan is designed to comply with the radiological 
criteria for license termination for unrestricted use, the LTP 
supports this margin of safety.
    In addition, the LTP provides the methodologies and criteria 
that will be used to perform remediation activities of residual 
radioactivity to demonstrate compliance with the ALARA [as low as 
reasonably achievable] criterion of 10 CFR 20.1402.
    Additionally, the LTP is designed with recognition that (a) the 
methods in MARSSIM (Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site 
Investigation Manual) (Reference 6) and (b) the building surface 
contamination levels are not directly applicable to use with complex 
nonstructural components. Therefore, the LTP states that 
nonstructural components remaining in buildings (e.g., pumps, heat 
exchangers, etc.) will be evaluated against the criteria of 
Regulatory Guide 1.86 (Reference 7) to determine if the components 
can be released for unrestricted use. The LTP also states that 
materials, surveyed and evaluated as a part of normal 
decommissioning activities and prior to implementation of the final 
radiation surveys, will be surveyed for release using current site 
procedures to demonstrate compliance with the ``no detectable'' 
criteria. Such materials that do not pass these criteria will be 
controlled as contaminated.

[[Page 20027]]

    Also, as previously discussed, the bounding accident for 
decommissioning is the resin container accident. Since the bounding 
decommissioning accident results in more airborne radioactivity than 
can be released from other decommissioning events, the margin of 
safety associated with the consequences of decommissioning accidents 
is not reduced by this activity.
    Thus, 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: Russ Workman, Deputy General Counsel, 
EnergySolutions, 423 West 300 South, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 
84101.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.

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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Date of application for amendment: November 20, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated November 20, 2013, and January 16 and 
December 19, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.4.1 utilizing 
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC's topical report WCAP-16011-NP-A, 
Revision 0, ``Startup Test Activity Reduction [STAR] Program,'' 
February 2005. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change 
Traveler TSTF-486, Revision 2. The use of WCAP-16011-NP-A is justified 
by the licensee in WCAP-17787-NP, Revision 0, ``Palo Verde Nuclear 
Generating Station STAR Program Implementation Report,'' August 2013.
    The amendments also modify SR 3.1.4.2 not to require the moderator 
temperature coefficient (MTC) determination if the result of the MTC 
determination required in TS 3.1.4.1 is within a certain tolerance of 
the corresponding design value. This change is based on the methods 
described in Combustion Engineering Owners Group Report CE NPSD-911-A 
and Amendment 1-A, ``Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in 
Support of a Change in the Technical Specifications End-of-Cycle 
Negative MTC Limits,'' September 2000.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1-195; Unit 2-195; Unit 3-195. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15070A124; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: 
The amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2014 (79 
FR 11146). The supplemental letters dated January 16 and December 19, 
2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina, 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: November 14, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated June 27, and November 10, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approve the use of 
DPC-3001-NE-P, Revision 1, ``Multidimensional Reactor Transients and 
Safety Analysis Physics Parameters Methodology.''
    Date of issuance: March 25, 2015.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date 
of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 274, 270, 277, and 257. A publicly-available 
version of the application is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15027A366; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, and 
NPF-17: Amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2014 (79 
FR 11147). The supplemental letters dated June 27, and November 10, 
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 March 25, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 20028]]

Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: September 26, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 28, May 23, and October 6, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
facility's emergency plan and emergency action level scheme to reflect 
the low likelihood of any credible accident at the facility in its 
permanently shutdown and defueled condition that could result in 
radiological releases requiring offsite protective measures.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 246. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15027A209; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the 
emergency plan and the emergency action levels.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 7, 2014 (79 FR 
857). The supplemental letters dated March 28, May 23, and October 6, 
2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of application for amendment: March 24, 2014, as supplemented 
by letters dated May 8, August 28, November 6, and December 15, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System 
Instrumentation,'' Functions 7.a and 7.b to update Scram Discharge 
Volume instrumentation nomenclature, add a surveillance requirement 
(SR), which was previously omitted, and add footnotes to an SR 
consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-493, Revision 
4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting 
Safety System Settings] Functions,'' Option A. The notice of 
availability of the models for plant-specific adoption of TSTF-493, 
Revision 4, was announced in the Federal Register on May 11, 2010 (75 
FR 26294).
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to restarting from refueling outage R-22, scheduled for spring 
2015.
    Amendment No.: 232. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15063A010; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
42544). The supplemental letters dated August 28, November 6, and 
December 15, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of application for amendment: June 25, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Columbia 
Generating Station Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule.
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 231. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15042A464; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: 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 March 27, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
No. 2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of application for amendment: March 26, 2013, as supplemented 
by letters dated December 12, 2013, and May 12, August 19, October 22, 
and December 5, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the ANO-2 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for end states associated 
with the implementation of the NRC-approved Topical Report NPSD-1186, 
Revision 0, ``Technical Justification for the Risk Informed 
Modification to Selected Required Action End States for CEOG 
[Combustion Engineering Owners Group] Member PWRs [Pressurized-Water 
Reactors],'' as well as Required Actions revised by a specific Note in 
TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-422, Revision 2, ``Change in 
Technical Specifications End States (CE NPSD-1186).'' The Notice of 
Availability for TSTF-422, Revision 2, was announced in the Federal 
Register on April 7, 2011 (76 FR 19510).
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 301. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15068A319; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 23, 2013 (78 FR 
44172). The supplemental letters dated December 12, 2013, and May 12, 
August 19, October 22, and December 5, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois
    Date of application for amendments: June 10, 2013, as supplemented 
by

[[Page 20029]]

letters dated October 24, 2013, March 5, 2014, and February 4, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the 
technical specifications (TSs), Surveillance Requirements 3.8.4.2 and 
3.8.4.5 to add new acceptance criteria for total battery connection 
resistance.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 256 and 251. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15056A772. Documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30: The 
amendments revised the TSs and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78 
FR 54283). The October 24, 2013, March 5, 2014, and February 4, 2015, 
supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC 
staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards 
consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
    Date of application for amendment: December 19, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated January 31, 2014, and November 3, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 for OCNGS. Specifically, the 
changes implement the use of an alternative measure that required prior 
NRC review and approval pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 73.55(r), related to controlling vital 
area access for certain portions of the Reactor Building at OCNGS.
    Date of Issuance: March 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14329A625; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment 
revised the license and technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 
25901). The supplemental letter dated November 3, 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 this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
    Date of application for amendment: October 8, 2014, as supplemented 
by a letter dated February 12, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
specifications (TSs) safety limit minimum critical power ratio value 
for single recirculation-loop-operation to support the use of GNF-2 
fuel during the next operating cycle.
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 165. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15075A091; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the 
TSs and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2015 (80 
FR 5819). The February 12, 2015, supplement contained clarifying 
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding 
of no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015.
    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 requests: March 7, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 30, 2014, December 16, 2014, January 15, 2015, 
and February 20, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 5.5.14, 
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' by adopting Nuclear 
Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for 
Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J'' 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202), and Section 4.1, ``Limitations and 
Conditions for NEI TR 94-01, Revision 2'' of the NRC Safety Evaluation 
Report in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A, dated October 2008 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML100620847), as the implementing document for the performance-
based Option B of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 326 for Unit 1 and 309 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15072A264; 
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 revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 27, 2014 (79 FR 
30188). The supplemental letters dated September 30, 2014, December 16, 
2014, January 15, 2015, and February 20, 2015, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment changes the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) and the Facility Operating License. The 
change deletes the Functional Unit ``Cold Leg Injection, P-15'' from TS 
3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation,'' 
and changes License Condition 2.K, ``Inadvertent Actuation of the 
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS).''
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2015.

[[Page 20030]]

    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 145. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15002A251; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 2015, (80 FR 
525).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: November 7, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.1, Table 3-3, Item 3.c concerning containment wide 
range radiation monitors to correct a typographical error introduced in 
TS Amendment No. 152.
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 281. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15035A203; 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: January 20, 2015 (80 FR 
2751).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated March 27, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of application for amendments: March 24, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved a change 
to revise Surveillance Requirements 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4, and 4.2.2.2.f 
associated with Power Distribution Limits Technical Specification (TS) 
3/4.2.1, ``Axial Flux Difference (AFD),'' and TS 3/4.2.2, ``Heat Flux 
Hot Channel Factor--FQ(Z).''
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 307 and 289. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15063A293; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The 
amendments revised the Technical Specifications and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR 
32770).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & 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: August 5, 2014, revised by letter dated 
August 28, 2014, and supplemented by letter dated November 3, 2014 
(Non-Public).
    Description of amendment: The amendment revises the design of 
connections between reinforced concrete (RC) and steel plate concrete 
composite construction (SC) included in the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report and changes to the Technical Report, 
``APP-GW-GLR-602, AP1000 Shield Building Design Details for Select Wall 
and RC/SC Connections,'' (prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company and 
reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of the 
design certification rule).
    Date of issuance: December 16, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 21. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14339A717; 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: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58824). The supplemental letter dated November 3, 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 the Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & 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: June 20, 2014, and supplemented by 
letter dated August 6, 2014.
    Description of amendment: The amendment revises the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report in regard to Tier 2 and Tier 2* information 
related to fire area boundaries. These changes include: adding of three 
new fire zones in the middle annulus to provide fire barrier enclosures 
for the Class 1E Electrical Divisions B, C, and D containment 
penetrations; and eliminating the Class 1E Electrical Division A 
enclosure and making the Division A containment penetration assemblies 
part of the existing middle annulus fire zone.
    Date of issuance: December 30, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 22. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14328A233; 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: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 
64228).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri
    Date of application for amendment: December 6, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 2 and December 11, 2014, and 
February 3, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the licensing 
basis as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)-Standard 
Plant Section 3.6.2.1.2.4, ``ASME [American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers] Section III and Non-Nuclear Piping-Moderate-Energy,'' and 
FSAR-Standard Plant Table 3.6-2,

[[Page 20031]]

``Design Comparison to Regulatory Positions of Regulatory Guide 1.46, 
Revision 0, dated May 1973, titled `Protection Against Pipe Whip Inside 
Containment,' '' in particular regard to the high-density polyethylene 
(HDPE) piping installed in ASME Class 3 line segments of the essential 
service water system. Also, new Reference 25 is added to FSAR-Standard 
Plant Section 3.6.3 to cite the NRC-approved version of the HDPE 
requirements covered by Relief Request I3R-10 dated October 31, 2008.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15064A028; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment 
revised the Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR 
15150). The supplements dated September 2 and December 11, 2014, and 
February 3, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-08579 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P