[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30097-30105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12661]



[[Page 30097]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0128]


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 April 30, 2015, to May 13, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 12, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 25, 2015. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 27, 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-2015-0128. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: 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: Janet Burkhardt, Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0128 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-2015-0128.
     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-2015-0128, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 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 30098]]

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 30099]]

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, in some instances, 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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 3 (MPS3), New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: August 19, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 26, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14237A099 and ML15033A381, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
MPS3 Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.1.2, ``Auxiliary Feedwater 
System,'' Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.7.1.2.1.b. The proposed 
change is consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications for 
Westinghouse Plants (NUREG-1431, Revision 4).
    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. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment associated with the modifications to the 
existing surveillance requirement will not cause an accident to 
occur and will not result in any change in the operation of the 
associated accident mitigation equipment. The ability of the 
equipment associated with the proposed amendment to mitigate the 
design basis accidents will not be affected. The proposed Technical 
Specification surveillance requirement is sufficient to ensure the 
required accident mitigation equipment will be available and 
function properly for design basis accident mitigation. In addition, 
the design basis accidents will remain the same postulated events 
described in the MPS3 Final Safety Analysis Report, and the 
consequences of those events will not be affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment will not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications 
surveillance requirement does not impact any system or component 
that could cause an accident. The proposed amendment does not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different 
types of equipment will be installed and there are no physical 
modifications to existing equipment associated with the proposed 
amendment. The proposed amendment will not alter the way any 
structure, system, or component functions, and will not alter the 
manner in which the plant is operated or require any new operator 
actions. There will be no adverse effect on plant operation or 
accident mitigation equipment. The response of the plant and the 
operators following an accident will not be different. In addition, 
the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new 
failure mode associated with any equipment or personnel failures.

[[Page 30100]]

    Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specification 
surveillance requirement will not cause an accident to occur and 
will not result in any change in the operation of the associated 
accident mitigation equipment. The equipment associated with the 
proposed Technical Specification surveillance requirement will 
continue to be able to mitigate the design basis accidents as 
assumed in the safety analysis. The proposed surveillance 
requirement is adequate to ensure proper operation of the affected 
accident mitigation equipment. In addition, the proposed amendment 
will not affect equipment design or operation, and there are no 
changes being made to the Technical Specification required safety 
limits or safety system settings. The proposed amendment, in 
conjunction with the IST [Inservice Testing] Program, will provide 
adequate control measures to ensure the accident mitigation 
functions are maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment will not result in a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14269A078.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to define a new time limit for restoring 
inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection 
instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate methods of 
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are 
inoperable.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is 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 modifies the operability requirements for 
the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection instrumentation 
to include a containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor 
and incorporates a reduction in the time allowed for the plant to 
operate when the only TS-required operable RCS leakage detection 
instrumentation monitor is the containment atmosphere gaseous 
radioactivity monitor. Accidents described in the ONS Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report involving RCS leakage are both small and 
large breaks in reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) piping. 
Such accidents already assume RCPB leakage (i.e., gross leakage). 
Thus, any change to Technical Specifications involving equipment 
that monitor[s] RCPB leakage is not a precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. In addition, any change to Technical 
Specifications involving equipment that monitor[s] RCPB leakage is 
not used to mitigate the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation to include a containment 
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor and incorporates a 
reduction in the time allowed for the plant to operate when the only 
TS-required operable RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor 
is the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor. 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. The proposed 
change maintains sufficient continuity and diversity of leak 
detection capability that the probability of piping evaluated and 
approved for Leak-Before-Break progressing to pipe rupture remains 
extremely low.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 modifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation to include a containment 
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor and incorporates a 
reduction in the time allowed for the plant to operate when the only 
TS-required operable RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor 
is the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor. By 
adding the option of utilizing a containment atmosphere gaseous 
radioactivity monitor in place of the existing containment 
atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor, ONS more closely 
conforms to NUREG-1430, Revision 3.0 TS limiting conditions for 
operation requirements for RCS leakage detection instrumentation. 
Since NUREG-1430 is an NRC-controlled document, the reduction in 
margin of safety for adding the option of utilizing a containment 
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor in place of the existing 
containment atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor is 
acceptable to the NRC and not considered significant. The reduced 
amount of time the plant is allowed to operate with only the 
containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor operable 
increases the margin of safety by increasing the likelihood that an 
increase in RCS leakage will be detected before it potentially 
results in gross failure.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station (CGS), 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: March 17, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15093A178.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
CGS Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance 
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, 
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative 
5b,'' dated March 18, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The 
availability of this TS improvement program was announced in the 
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). Energy Northwest has 
proposed certain plant-specific variations and deviations from TSTF-
425, Revision 3, as described in its application dated March 17, 2015.

[[Page 30101]]

    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 any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to the 
Technical Specifications (TS)), because these are not affected by 
changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no 
impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the 
plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated 
surveillance frequency, Energy Northwest will perform a 
probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC 
approved [Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, Revision 1, ``Risk-
Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed 
Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies,'' April 2007 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML071360456)] in accordance with the TS Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, methodology 
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating 
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies 
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177 [Revision 1, ``An Approach 
for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical 
Specifications,'' May 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100910008)].
    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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated April 10, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15068A359 and ML15100A406, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would create new 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.2.1, ``Refueling Operations/Unborated 
Water Source Isolation Valves,'' to isolate unborated water sources in 
Mode 6 (Refueling) and revise the exiting TS 3.9.2, ``Refueling 
Operations/Instrumentation,'' to support using the Gamma-Metrics Post 
Accident Neutron Monitors (PANM) for neutron flux indication during 
Mode 6. TS 3.9.2 is renumbered as TS 3.9.2.2 and the TS language is re-
worded to be consistent with the language in NUREG-1431, Revision 4, 
``Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants.''
    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.
    A boron dilution event during Mode 6 has been precluded through 
the proposed Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for 
Operation 3.9.2.1, which requires isolating unborated water sources 
by securing valves in the closed position.
    The primary function of the source range neutron flux monitors 
in Mode 6 is to inform the operators of unexpected changes in core 
reactivity. The proposed change to allow using the Gamma-Metric PANM 
for neutron flux monitoring during Mode 6 does not increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated, because the source 
range neutron flux monitors are not accident initiators or 
precursors.
    The use of Gamma-Metrics PANM, does not significantly increase 
the consequences of a boron dilution event. Boron dilution during 
Mode 6 has been precluded by isolating unborated water sources by 
securing valves in the closed position. The use of Gamma Metrics 
PANM, does not affect the integrity of the fission product barriers 
utilized for the mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a 
result of an 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 changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Gamma-Metrics PANMs are used for monitoring neutron flux and 
criticality assessment in Mode 6. The proposed changes will not 
adversely affect this monitoring capability. The proposed changes do 
not involve any physical modification of plant systems, structures, 
or components, or changes in parameters governing plant operation. 
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures 
are introduced as a result of any of the proposed changes. Source 
range neutron flux monitors are not accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their intended functions. 
These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary, and the containment. The proposed TS changes do 
not affect any of these barriers. No accident mitigating equipment 
will be adversely impacted by the proposed changes. Boron dilution 
during Mode 6 has been precluded by isolating unborated water 
sources by securing valves in the closed position. The Gamma-Metrics 
PANM are not explicitly credited in any accident analysis for Mode 
6. The existing safety margins are preserved.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.


[[Page 30102]]


    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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: April 13, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15103A656.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Technical Change Traveler 432-A, 
Revision 1, ``Change in Technical Specifications End States, WCAP-
16294,'' dated November 29, 2010.
    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 modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other 
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be 
entered if compliance with the Limiting Conditions for Operation 
(LCO) is not restored. The requested Technical Specifications (TS) 
permit an end state of Mode 4 rather than an end state of Mode 5 
contained in the current TS. In some cases, other Conditions and 
Required Actions are revised to implement the proposed change. 
Required Actions are not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The affected 
systems continued to be required to be operable by the TS and the 
Completion Times specified in the TS to restore equipment to 
operable status or take other remedial Actions remain unchanged. 
WCAP-16294-NP-A, Rev. 1, ``Risk-Informed Evaluation of Changes to 
Tech Spec Required Action Endstates for Westinghouse NSSS PWRs,'' 
demonstrates that the proposed change does not significantly 
increase the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other 
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be 
entered if compliance with the LCO is not restored. In some cases, 
other Conditions and Required Actions are revised to implement the 
proposed change. The 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 change does not impose any new 
requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other 
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be 
entered if compliance with the LCO is not restored. In some cases, 
other Conditions and Required Actions are revised to implement the 
proposed change. Remaining within the Applicability of the LCO is 
acceptable because WCAP-16294-NP-A demonstrates that the plant risk 
in MODE 4 is similar to or lower than MODE 5. As a result, no margin 
of safety is significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of 
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness 
Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: February 17, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15050A179.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Table 
3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' of the 
Technical Specifications to correct an inadvertent omission made by 
Amendment Nos. 251, 290, and 249 for Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML042730028). Specifically, the proposed revision 
would add the number ``3'' to indicate Mode 3 for Function 5.g, Standby 
Liquid Control System (SLCS) initiation, to the column entitled, 
``Applicable Modes or Other Specified Conditions.'' When this 
inadvertent error is corrected, SLCS will be required to be operable in 
Modes 1, 2, and 3.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review 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 corrects Table 3.3.6.1-1 as stated above. As 
corrected, Function 5.g, SLCS initiation, will be required to be 
capable of performing its design safety function and is not rendered 
inoperable if the reactor is placed into Mode 3. SLCS initiation 
operable in Mode 3 is in the units' current licensing bases. Thus, 
no previously evaluated accident consequence will be increased by 
this change. Furthermore, the SLCS initiation was not postulated to 
be an initiator of any previously evaluated accident.
    Thus, restoring the requirement for SLCS initiation to be 
available in Mode 3 will not have any impact on the probability of 
occurrence of any previously evaluated accident.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) and does not change the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new 
or different requirements.
    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 does not affect any current plant safety 
margin, analysis method, acceptance criterion, safety limit, safety 
system setting, or reliability of equipment assumed in the safety 
analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c)

[[Page 30103]]

are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: April 6, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15117A462.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by modifying the acceptance criteria for 
the emergency diesel generator (DG) steady state frequency range in 
associated surveillance requirements.
    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 DGs are required to be operable in the event of a design 
basis accident coincident with a loss of offsite power to mitigate 
the consequences of the accident. The DGs are not accident 
initiators and therefore these changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The accident analyses assume that at least one load group bus is 
provided with power either from the offsite circuits or the DGs. The 
change proposed in this license amendment request will continue to 
assure that the DGs have the capacity and capability to assume their 
maximum design basis accident loads. The proposed change does not 
significantly alter how the plant would mitigate an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which 
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components 
(SSC) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, 
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in 
evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types 
and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, 
nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/
public radiation exposure.
    Therefore, this 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 change does not involve a change in the plant 
design, system operation, or the use of the DGs. The proposed change 
requires the DGs to meet SR [surveillance requirement] acceptance 
criteria that envelope the actual demand requirements for the DGs 
during design basis conditions. These revised acceptance criteria 
continue to demonstrate the capability and capacity of the DGs to 
perform their required functions. There are no new failure modes or 
mechanisms created due to testing the DGs within the proposed 
acceptance criteria. Testing of the DGs at the proposed acceptance 
criteria does not involve any modification in the operational limits 
or physical design of plant systems. There are no new accident 
precursors generated due to the proposed test loadings.
    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 change will continue to demonstrate that the DGs 
meet the TS definition of operability, that is, the proposed 
acceptance criteria will continue to demonstrate that the DGs will 
perform their safety function. The proposed testing will also 
continue to demonstrate the capability and capacity of the DGs to 
supply their required loads for mitigating a design basis accident.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result 
in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
    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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Dr., ET 11A, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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.

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2014.
    Description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cyber Security 
Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 implementation date. Milestone 8 pertains to 
full implementation of the CSP for all safety, security, and emergency 
preparedness functions.
    Date of issuance: May 7, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 200. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

[[Page 30104]]

Accession No. ML15096A043; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2014 (79 
FR 53458).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 7, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station (CGS), 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of application for amendment: November 17, 2014, as 
supplemented by letter dated March 17, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 2.0, ``Safety Limits,'' to revise values for the 
safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) for single and two 
recirculation loop operation due to core loading fuel management 
changes for the upcoming operating cycle. Specifically, the amendment 
would increase the numeric values of SLMCPR in TS Section 2.1.1.2 to 
incorporate the results of the CGS Cycle 23 SLMCPR analysis.
    Date of issuance: May 11, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
before plant start-up from the spring 2015 refueling outage (Cycle 23).
    Amendment No.: 234. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15098A254; 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 TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR 
5800). The supplemental letter dated March 17, 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 May 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: December 10, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 13 and March 11, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revised the minimum 
critical power ratio from >=1.08 to >=1.10 for two recirculation loop 
operation and from >=1.11 to >=1.12 for single recirculation loop 
operation in Technical Specification (TS) 2.1, ``Safety Limits.''
    Date of issuance: May 6, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 243. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15114A021; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: Amendment revised 
the License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 12, 2015 (80 FR 
13030). The supplement dated March 11, 2015, 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 May 6, 2015.
    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: October 7, 2014, as supplemented 
by letter dated January 6, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs) related to gas accumulation for the emergency core 
cooling system and reactor core isolation cooling system. The amendment 
also added new SRs related to gas accumulation for the residual heat 
removal, shutdown cooling, and containment spray systems. The NRC staff 
has concluded that the Technical Specification (TS) changes are 
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, 
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 
21, 2013, as part of the consolidated line item improvement process. 
The TS Bases changes associated with these SRs were also changed as 
proposed by the TSTF.
    Date of issuance: May 12, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 202. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15104A623; 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 and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 17, 2015 (80 
FR 8360).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 12, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: July 10, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and added 
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements to address the 
concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas 
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and 
Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008. The TS changes are 
based on TS Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic 
Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013.
    Date of issuance: May 11, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 216 and 178. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15083A403; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.

[[Page 30105]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52064).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: January 6, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 9, December 4, and December 17, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The license amendments revised 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System 
Instrumentation,'' with respect to the required actions and allowed 
outage times for inoperable reactor trip breakers.
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--205; Unit 2--193. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15075A146; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45481). The supplemental letters dated December 4 and December 17, 
2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of May, 2015.


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-12661 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P