[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38756-38770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16539]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0163]


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 June 11, 2015, to June 24, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 23, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 6, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 8, 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-2015-0163. 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

[[Page 38757]]

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: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0163 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-2015-0163.
     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-2015-0163, 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 submissions into ADAMS.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

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

[[Page 38758]]

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 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,

[[Page 38759]]

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.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, 
Ohio
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14353A349.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the technical specifications (TS) to adopt performance-based 
Type C testing for the reactor containment, which would allow for 
extended test intervals for Type C valves, and corrects an editorial 
issue in the TS.
    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 adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of 
[Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry 
Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 
50, Appendix J,'' for DBNPS performance-based Type C containment 
isolation valve testing. Revision 3-A of NEI 94-01 allows, based on 
previous valve leak test performance, an extension of Type C 
containment isolation valve leak test intervals. Since the change 
involves only performance-based Type C testing, the proposed 
amendment does not involve either a physical change to the plant or 
a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.
    Implementation of these guidelines continues to provide adequate 
assurance that during design basis accidents, the components of the 
primary containment system will limit leakage rates to less than the 
values assumed in the plant safety analyses.
    The proposed amendment will not change the leakage rate 
acceptance requirements. As such, the containment will continue to 
perform its design function as a barrier to fission product 
releases.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to revise the extended frequency 
performance-based Type C testing program does not change the design 
or operation of structures, systems, or components of the plant.
    The proposed amendment would continue to ensure containment 
operability and would ensure operation within the bounds of existing 
accident analyses. There are no accident initiators created or 
affected by the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to revise the extended frequency 
performance-based Type C testing program does not affect plant 
operations, design functions, or any analysis that verifies the 
capability of a structure, system, or component of the plant to 
perform a design function. In addition, this change does not affect 
safety limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting 
conditions for operation. The specific requirements and conditions 
of the Technical Specification Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural 
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety 
analysis is maintained.
    The overall containment leak rate limit specified by Technical 
Specifications is maintained, thus ensuring the margin of safety in 
the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, 
testing methods, and acceptance criteria for Type A, Type B, and 
Type C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and 
standards would continue to be met with the acceptance of this 
proposed change, since these are not affected by this revision to 
the performance-based containment testing program.
    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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
    Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15091A143.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requests 
changes to certain technical specification minimum voltage and 
frequency acceptance criteria for emergency diesel generator (EDG) 
surveillance testing.

[[Page 38760]]

    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 provide more restrictive acceptance 
criteria for certain EDG technical specification surveillance tests. 
The proposed acceptance criteria changes would help to ensure the 
EDGs are capable of carrying the electrical loading assumed in the 
safety analyses that take credit for the operation of the EDGs, 
would not affect the capability of other structures, systems, and 
components to perform their design function, and would not increase 
the likelihood of a malfunction.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would provide more restrictive acceptance 
criteria to be applied to existing technical specification 
surveillance tests that demonstrate the capability of the facility 
EDGs to perform their design function. The proposed acceptance 
criteria changes would not create any new failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design 
and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed EDG surveillance requirement changes involve 
increased minimum voltage and frequency test acceptance criteria. 
The conduct of surveillance tests on safety related plant equipment 
is a means of assuring that the equipment is capable of maintaining 
the margin of safety established in the safety analyses for the 
facility. The proposed amendment does not affect EDG performance as 
described in the design basis analyses, including the capability for 
the EDG to attain and maintain required voltage and frequency for 
accepting and supporting plant safety loads should an EDG start 
signal be received. The proposed amendment does not introduce 
changes to limits established in the accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Docket No. 50-
184, Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), Montgomery County, Maryland
    Date of amendment request: June 23, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 20, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML14196A043 and ML14241A384, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the NIST NCNR's Technical Specifications, sections 3.6 and 4.6, 
pertaining to the replacement of NCNR's Uninterruptable Power Supplies 
(UPS) which supplies emergency alternating current power to reactor 
critical loads.
    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 not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed 
amendment modifies maintenance requirements for emergency power 
systems due to a change in battery technology used in commercially 
available UPS. The proposed amendment will assure the reliability of 
the emergency power systems utilizing valve-regulated lead acid 
(VRLA) batteries by increasing the frequency of performance testing 
as recommended by the battery manufacturer and the IEEE (Institute 
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). The IEEE recommends the 
performance test Interval for VRLA batteries (IEEE-I 188) should not 
be greater than 25% of the expected service life or two years, 
whichever is less. The expected lifespan of a VRLA battery is ten 
years so a two year testing interval was selected. More frequent 
performance testing will ensure all the station batteries used for 
emergency power remain capable of supplying emergency electrical 
loads for a minimum of four hours as required. The proposed 
amendment will also correct a typographical error and add the 
requirement in the Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCO) for at 
least one of the two replacement UPS system batteries to be 
available to operate the reactor. Each UPS battery system is capable 
of independently supplying the designated emergency electrical loads 
for a minimum of four hours. Power for larger electrical loads such 
as primary cooling backup pumps (shutdown pumps) and emergency 
ventilation fans comes from other sources of emergency electrical 
power (diesel generators, critical power bus, or 125 VDC [volt 
direct current] station battery).
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. The replacement UPS utilizes a different battery type 
(VRLA) which has shorter lifespan than traditional Vented Lead Acid 
(VLA) batteries. Increasing the frequency of performance monitoring 
as recommended by the IEEE accounts for the shorter lifespan of VRLA 
batteries and will enable the facility to identify a loss of battery 
capacity early to permit scheduled replacement of individual system 
components. Two identical but redundant UPS systems will each 
provide for a minimum of four hours at fully rated emergency power 
loading (20 kVA [kilovolt ampere]). The actual emergency electrical 
loads on the UPS will be significantly less because the larger 
electrical loads will continue to be powered from the 125 VDC 
station battery directly or from one of two emergency diesel 
generators. The new system will have higher reliability and capacity 
than the existing emergency power system.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety. More frequent monitoring of the capacity or 
performance of the VRLA batteries utilized in the replacement UPS 
supplying power to critical reactor loads will ensure the UPS 
performs its design function and loss of battery capacity is 
detected early before safety margins are reduced.

    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: Melissa J. Lieberman, Deputy Chief Counsel, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
    NRC Branch Chief: Alexander Adams, Jr.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-321 and 
50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling 
County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: April 2, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in

[[Page 38761]]

ADAMS under Accession No. ML15092A856.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment modifies 
Technical Specifications (TS) section 1.0 (``Definitions''), Limiting 
Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirement Applicability, 
section 3.4.9 (``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature 
(P/T) Limits''), and section 5.0 (``Administrative Controls'') to 
delete reference to the pressure and temperature curves, and to include 
reference to the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). This 
change adopts the methodology of Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group 
(BWROG)-TP-11-022-A Revision 1 (SIR-05-044, Revision 1-A), ``Pressure-
Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,'' 
dated June 2013, and of BWROG-TP-11-023-A, Revision 0 (0900876.401, 
Revision 0-A), ``Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of 
General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Water Level Instrument Nozzles 
for Pressure-Temperature Curve Evaluations,'' dated May 2013, for 
preparation of the pressure and temperature (P-T) curves, and 
incorporates the guidance of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
TSTF-419-A, ``Revise PTLR Definition and References in Improved 
Standard Technical Specification (ISTS) 5.6.6, RCS PTLR.'' The HNP 
PTLRs have been developed based on the methodologies provided in BWROG-
TP-11-022-A, Revision 1, and BWROG-TP-11-023-A, Revision 0, and based 
on the template provided in BWROG-TP-11-022-A, Revision 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) 
Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS) Section 1.0 
(``Definitions''), Limiting Conditions for Operation and 
Surveillance Requirement Applicability Section 3.4.9 (``RCS Pressure 
and Temperature (P/T) Limits''), and Section 5.0 (``Administrative 
Controls''), to delete reference to the pressure and temperature 
curves, and to include reference to the Pressure and Temperature 
Limits Report (PTLR). This change adopts the methodology of BWROG-
TP-11-022-A, Revision 1 (SIR-05-044, Revision 1-A), ``Pressure-
Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,'' 
dated June 2013, and of BWROG-TP-11-023-A, Revision 0 (0900876.401, 
Revision 0-A), ``Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of 
General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Water Level Instrument 
Nozzles for Pressure-Temperature Curve Evaluations,'' dated May 
2013, for preparation of the pressure and temperature curves, and 
incorporates the guidance of TSTF-419-A, ``Revise PTLR Definition 
and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS PTLR.'' The HNP PTLRs have been 
developed based on the methodologies provided in BWROG-TP-11-022-A, 
Revision 1 and BWROG-TP-11-023-A, Revision 0, and based on the 
template provided in BWROG-TP-11-022-A, Revision 1. The HNP PTLRs 
meet all Conditions specified in the Safety Evaluation Reports 
(SERs) for BWROG-TP-11-022-A, Revision 1 and for BWROG-TP-11-023-A, 
Revision 0.
    The NRC has established requirements in Appendix G to 10 CFR 50 
in order to protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure 
boundary (RCPB) in nuclear power plants. Additionally, the 
regulation in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix H, provides the NRC staff's 
criteria for the design and implementation of reactor pressure 
vessel (RPV) material surveillance programs for operating lightwater 
reactors. Implementing these NRC approved methodologies does not 
reduce the ability to protect the reactor coolant pressure boundary 
as specified in Appendix G, nor will this change increase the 
probability of malfunction of plant equipment, or the failure of 
plant structures, systems, or components. Incorporation of the new 
methodologies for calculating P-T curves, and the relocation of the 
P-T curves from the TS to the PTLR, provides an equivalent level of 
assurance that the RCPB is capable of performing its intended safety 
functions.
    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 does not affect the assumed accident 
performance of the RCPB, nor any plant structure, system, or 
component previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve 
the installation of new equipment, and installed equipment is not 
being operated in a new or different manner. The change in 
methodology ensures that the RCPB remains capable of performing its 
safety functions. No set points are being changed which would alter 
the dynamic response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure 
modes are introduced which could introduce the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect the function of the RCPB or 
its response during plant transients. There are no changes proposed 
which alter the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated, 
and there is no change to the operability requirements for equipment 
assumed to operate for accident mitigation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment 
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards 
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no 
significant hazards is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric
    Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: October 7, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14280A391.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4. 
The requested amendment proposes to modify the existing feedwater 
controller logic to allow the controller program to respond as required 
to various plant transients while minimizing the potential for false 
actuation. Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 
1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control 
Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the 
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 
52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will modify the control logic for actuation 
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their

[[Page 38762]]

defense-in-depth function of core decay heat removal. The 
instrumentation used for actuation of the SFW pumps in their 
defense-in-depth function are not initiators of any accident. The 
proposed control logic uses different instrument tag numbers than 
the current design. The instruments used for the actuation of this 
function exist as a part of the current design; therefore this 
proposed change does not require any additional instrumentation. 
These instruments, to be included as part of the Design Reliability 
Assurance Program (D-RAP), will be held to the same enhanced quality 
assurance (QA) requirements as the current instruments and therefore 
neither safety, performance, nor reliance will be reduced as a part 
of this change.
    Additionally, the proposed changes do not adversely affect any 
accident initiating event or component failure, thus accidents 
previously evaluated are not adversely affected. In the event of 
loss of offsite power that results in a loss of main feedwater (MFW) 
supply, the SFW pumps automatically supply feedwater to the steam 
generators to cool down the reactor under emergency shutdown 
conditions. The standby source motor control center circuit powers 
each of the two SFW pumps and their associated instruments and 
valves. The pump discharge isolation valves are motor-operated and 
are normally closed and interlocked with the SFW pumps. In the event 
of loss of offsite power, the onsite standby power supply diesel 
generators will power the SFW pumps. If both the normal ac power and 
the onsite standby ac power are unavailable, these valves will fail 
``as-is.'' The pump suction header isolation valves are 
pneumatically actuated. The main and startup feedwater system (FWS) 
also has temperature instrumentation in the pump discharge that 
would permit monitoring of the SFW temperature. This proposed change 
therefore has no impact on the ability of the AP1000 plant to cool 
down under emergency shutdown conditions or during a loss of offsite 
power event.
    No function used to mitigate a radioactive material release and 
no radioactive material release source term is involved, thus the 
radiological releases in the accident analyses are not adversely 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will modify the control logic for actuation 
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their defense-in-
depth function of core decay heat removal. The instrumentation used 
for actuation of the SFW pumps in their defense-in-depth function 
are not initiators of any accident. The proposed control logic uses 
different instrument tag numbers than the current design. However, 
the instruments used for the actuation of this function already 
exist as a part of the current design and so this change does not 
require any additional instrumentation. These instruments, to be 
included as part of the D-RAP, will be held to the same enhanced QA 
requirements as the current instruments and so neither safety, 
performance, nor reliance will be reduced as a part of this change. 
Furthermore, since the D-RAP ensures consistency with the 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), the changes do not impact the 
PRA. The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode, 
fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive 
material release. The proposed change does not alter the design, 
configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard 
functional capabilities of the equipment.
    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 changes will modify the control logic for actuation 
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their defense-in-
depth function of core decay heat removal. These changes will have 
no negative impacts on the safety margin associated with the design 
functions of the SFW pumps. The proposed logic changes will only 
resolve the current conditions associated with undesired start up 
signals for the SFW pumps. The changes set forth in this amendment 
correct the actuation logic of the SFW pumps, so that the feedwater 
controller logic is now aligned with the guidance provided in the 
Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document (ALWR 
URD). In addition, the operation of the startup feedwater system 
function is not credited to mitigate a design-basis accident. Since 
there is no change to an existing design basis limit/criterion, 
design function, or regulatory criterion no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, 
Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: March 19, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML15091A657.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Emergency Plan for SSES to adopt the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI's) 
revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme described in NEI 99-01, 
Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive 
Reactors'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A805), which was endorsed by the 
NRC, as documented in NRC letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML12346A463).
    On June 1, 2015, the NRC staff issued an amendment changing the 
name on the SSES license from PPL Susquehanna, LLC, to Susquehanna 
Nuclear, LLC. This amendment was issued subsequent to an order issued 
on April 10, 2015, to SSES, approving an indirect license transfer.
    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 changes to the EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed 
guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action 
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' do not reduce the capability to 
meet the emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 
and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the 
functionality, performance, or capability of the ERO [Emergency 
Response Organization] to respond in mitigating the consequences of 
any design basis accident.
    The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation 
of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the 
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the 
Emergency Plan. As discussed in Section I.D, ``Planning Basis,'' of 
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of 
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of 
Nuclear Power Plants'';
    . . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to 
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a 
spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of 
Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident 
sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because 
each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and 
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning 
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no 
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident 
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst 
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood . . .
    Therefore, risk insights are not considered for any specific 
accident initiation or

[[Page 38763]]

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

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel, 
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA 
18101.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1 
(Callaway), Callaway County, Missouri
    Date of amendment request: May 8, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15132A137.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would change 
Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.1 and 5.6.5 to adopt NRC-approved 
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC topical report WCAP-14565-P-A, 
Addendum 2-P-A, ``Extended Application of ABB-NV [Asea Brown Boveri 
N.V.] Correlation and Modified ABB-NV Correlation WLOP [Westinghouse 
Low Pressure] for PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Low Pressure 
Applications,'' April 2008 (proprietary).
    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.
    Overall protection system performance will remain within the 
bounds of the accident analyses since there are no design changes. 
The design of the reactor trip system (RTS) instrumentation will be 
unaffected, and thus, the protection system will continue to 
function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis. All 
applicable design, material, and construction standards will 
continue to be maintained.
    The proposed changes will not affect any assumptions regarding 
accident initiators or precursors nor adversely alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the 
intended manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The 
proposed changes will not alter or prevent the ability of 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their 
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an initiating 
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    The proposed changes do not physically alter safety-related 
systems nor affect the way in which safety-related systems perform 
their functions. TS 5.6.5.b continues to ensure that the analytical 
methods used to determine the core operating limits meet NRC 
reviewed and approved methodologies. TS 5.6.5.c, unchanged by this 
amendment application, will continue to ensure that applicable 
limits of the safety analyses are met.
    The proposed change to TS 2.1.1.1 to specify only the true DNBR 
[departure from nucleate boiling ratio] safety limit without the 
addition of analytical uncertainties does not alter the use of the 
analytical methods used to determine core operating limits that have 
been reviewed and approved by the NRC. Removing analytical 
uncertainties from the TS would allow the use of current topical 
reports to refine those uncertainties without having to submit an 
amendment to the operating license, consistent with the intent of 
WCAP-14483-A [``Generic Methodology for Expanded Core Operating 
Limits Report,'' dated January 19, 1999; ADAMS Accession No. 
ML020430092]. Implementation of revisions to topical reports for 
Callaway Plant applications would still be reviewed in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) and, where required, receive prior NRC 
review and approval.
    All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be 
met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect 
the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release 
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter 
any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological 
consequence evaluations in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. 
The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue 
to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 ABB-NV correlation was originally developed for Combustion 
Engineering fuel designs, and has also been qualified and licensed 
for Westinghouse fuel applications for the fuel region below the 
first mixing vane grid where the W-3 correlation is currently 
applied. The WLOP correlation is developed for DNBR calculations at 
low pressure conditions. The W-3A correlations, which are based 
exclusively on DNB [departure from nucleate boiling] data from rod 
bundle tests, have a wider applicable range and are more accurate 
than the W-3 correlation, leading to increased DNB margin in the 
plant safety analyses. The NRC-approved ABB-NV and WLOP correlation 
95/95 DNBR limits with the VIPRE-W code are 1.13 and 1.18, 
respectively.
    The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, 
as the change is simply allowing the use of more accurate 
correlations when evaluating DNBR. The change does not involve any 
physical changes to the facility.
    Likewise, revising TS 2.1.1.1 to present the DNBR safety limit 
calculated using the WRB-2 methodology, without uncertainties being 
applied, does [sic] not introduce any new or different failure mode 
from what has been previously been evaluated. The change does not 
involve any change to a methodology, including how uncertainties are 
calculated and accounted for, nor does it involve any physical 
change to the facility.

[[Page 38764]]

    Collectively, and based on the above, 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 a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The ABB-NV correlation was originally developed for Combustion 
Engineering fuel designs, and has also been qualified and licensed 
for Westinghouse fuel applications for the fuel region below the 
first mixing vane grid where the W-3 correlation is currently 
applied. The WLOP correlation is developed for DNBR calculations at 
low pressure conditions. The W-3A correlations, which are based 
exclusively on DNB data from rod bundle tests, have a wider 
applicable range and are more accurate than the W-3 correlation, 
leading to increased DNB margin in the plant safety analyses. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The currently listed Safety Limit in TS 2.1.1.1 for DNBR of 1.22 
is calculated with some uncertainties statistically combined into 
the 1.17 value calculated using the WRB-2 methodology. These 
uncertainties are combined using the RTDP [Revised Thermal Design 
Procedure] methodology described in WCAP-11397-P-A [``Revised 
Thermal Design Procedure,'' April 1989 (proprietary)]. Callaway FSAR 
Section 4.4.1.1 discusses which uncertainties are statistically 
combined into the correlation limit.
    Revising TS 2.1.1.1 to present the DNBR safety limit calculated 
using the WRB-2 methodology, without uncertainties being applied, 
does not represent a change in methodology, but rather allows for 
changes in calculated uncertainties using methodologies previously 
approved for Callaway without requiring a license amendment. The 
proposed TS 2.1.1.1 revision does not represent a change in 
methodology for performing analyses.
    The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillances or alter 
the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical 
Specifications. The nominal RTS and ESFAS [engineered safety 
features actuation system] trip setpoints (as well as the associated 
allowable values) will remain unchanged. None of the acceptance 
criteria for any accident analysis will be changed.
    As there is no change to the source term, radiological release, 
or [dose] mitigation functions assumed in the accident analysis, the 
proposed changes have no impact on the radiological consequences of 
a design basis accident.
    Based on the above, 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: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (NAPS), Louisa County, 
Virginia
    Date of amendment request: May 4, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15131A026.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
would revise an incorrect equipment mark number, due to an 
administrative error in the current Emergency Action Levels (EAL). The 
amendment would correct the equipment mark number from the ``GW-RI-178-
1 Process Vent Normal Range'' monitor to the ``VG-RI-180-1 Vent Stack B 
Normal Range'' monitor for Initiating Condition (IC) RA2, EAL RA2.1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This administrative change affects the NAPS EALs, but does not 
alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the 
Technical Specifications. The proposed change does not modify any 
plant equipment and does not impact any failure modes that could 
lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed change has no effect 
on the consequences of any analyzed accident since the change does 
not affect any equipment related to accident mitigation.
    Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The change affects the NAPS EALs by correcting an incorrect 
radiation monitor reference, but does not alter any of the 
requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. It does not modify any plant equipment and there is 
no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to perform its 
intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified. No new 
failure modes are introduced by the proposed change. The proposed 
amendment does not introduce an accident initiator or any 
malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The change affects the NAPS EALs, but does not alter any of the 
requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed change does not affect any of the 
assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor does it affect any 
operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not result in 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 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 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment

[[Page 38765]]

under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 
made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire 
Nuclear Station (McGuire), Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North 
Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee), Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, 
South Carolina
    Date of application for amendments: November 6, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed the 
completion date for implementing Milestone 8 of the Duke Cyber Security 
Plan. Specifically, the amendments revised the date from June 30, 2015, 
to December 31, 2017.
    Date of issuance: June 11, 2015.
    Effective date: The license amendments are effective as of their 
dates of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Catawba Unit 1--276; Catawba Unit 2--272; McGuire 
Unit 1--279; McGuire Unit 2--259; Oconee Unit 1--391; Oconee Unit 2--
393; and Oconee Unit 3--392. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML15133A453; 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, NPF-
17, DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: Amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR 
5818).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina
    Date of amendment request: November 8, 2010, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 1, 2011; June 28, 2012; March 28, April 18, 
September 27, and November 29, 2013; March 20 (two letters), and April 
23, 2014; and May 28, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved revisions 
to the updated final safety analysis report to incorporate the 
licensee's reactor vessel internals inspection plan based on the 
Materials Reliability Program: ``Pressurized Water Reactor Internals 
Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines (MRP-227-A),'' published by the 
Electric Power Research Institute.
    Date of issuance: June 19, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 392 for Unit 1, 394 for Unit 2, and 393 for Unit 3. 
A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. 
ML15050A671; documents related to these amendments are listed in the 
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR 
60149). The supplemental letters dated September 1, 2011; March 28, 
April 18, September 27, and November 29, 2013; March 20 (two letters), 
and April 23, 2014; and May 28, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
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: July 14, 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: June 19, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 183, 183, 189, 189, 204, 244, 237, 214, 200, 257, 
and 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. 
ML15114A188; documents related to these amendments are listed in the 
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66, 
NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, DPR-29, and DPR-30: The 
amendments revised the TSs and Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 
64224).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 38766]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
    Date of amendment request: November 13, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 13, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.9, ``Pressurizer,'' TS 3.6.6, ``Containment 
Spray and Cooling Systems,'' TS 3.6.8, ``Iodine Removal System,'' TS 
3.7.8, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System,'' and TS 3.7.12, 
``Penetration Room Exhaust Ventilation System'' to provide a short 
completion time to restore an inoperable system for conditions under 
which existing TSs require a plant shutdown.
    Date of issuance: January 14, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 309 and 287. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14307A842; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: The 
amendments revised the Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
42548). The supplement dated June 13, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 14, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
    Date of application for amendment: June 23, 2014, as supplemented 
by a letter dated February 27, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment updated the technical 
specification (TS) pressure and temperature (P/T) figures using an NRC 
approved methodology to adjust the P/T limit curves for the previously 
missing data, addresses the reactor coolant system (RCS) vacuum 
condition that can occur under certain conditions, and aligns the 
heatup/cooldown requirements of the TS with the limits in the 
associated P/T figures. Additionally editorial changes are proposed 
related to the P/T figures including clarifications and updates to the 
associated titles, labeling, and notes.
    Date of issuance: June 12, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 168. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15141A482; 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: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58817).
    The February 27, 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 June 12, 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 amendment request: September 12, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the 
Technical Specification (TS) definition of SHUTDOWN MARGIN (SDM) to 
require calculation of SDM at the reactor moderator temperature 
corresponding to the most reactive state throughout the operating 
cycle. The changes are consistent with the approved Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-535, Revision 0.
    Date of issuance: June 23, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 169. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15160A028; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 
FR 70216).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 23, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: February 20, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 11, 2014, and January 13, January 28, April 18, 
and May 19, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance 
frequency requirements to a licensee-controlled program with 
implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed 
Technical Specification Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control 
of Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). The 
NEI 04-10 methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and 
methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to 
surveillance frequencies, consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177, ``An 
Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical 
Specifications'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740176). The changes are 
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard Technical Specifications Change TSTF-425, Revision 3, 
``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk 
Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative 5b'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML090850642). The Federal Register notice published on 
July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the availability of TSTF-425, 
Revision 3. The amendments also include editorial changes to the TSs, 
administrative deviations from TSTF-425, and other changes resulting 
from differences between the St. Lucie Plant TSs and the TSs on which 
TSTF-425 was based.
    Date of issuance: June 22, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 223 and 173. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A066; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The NRC staff initially 
made a proposed determination that the amendment request dated February 
20,

[[Page 38767]]

2014, involved no significant hazards consideration (July 22, 2014, 79 
FR 42550). By letters dated December 11, 2014, and January 13, 2015, 
the licensee provided clarifying information that did not expand the 
scope of the application and did not change the NRC staff's original 
proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, as 
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2014 (79 FR 44550). 
Subsequently, by letter dated January 28, 2015, the licensee 
supplemented its amendment request with a proposed change that expanded 
the scope of the request. Therefore, the NRC published a second 
proposed NSHC determination in the Federal Register on March 3, 2015 
(80 FR 11477), which superseded the notice dated July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
44550). The licensee's supplements dated April 18, 2015, and May 19, 
2015, provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of 
the submittal and did not change the NRC staff's proposed NSHC 
determination, as published in the notice dated March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11477).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in an SE dated June 22, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272 and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date amendment request: December 9, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated April 9, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the PSEG 
Nuclear LLC (PSEG) Environmental Protection Plans (non-radiological) 
(EPPs), contained in Appendix B to the renewed facility operating 
licenses for Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating 
Station, Units 1 and 2, to clarify that PSEG must adhere to the 
currently applicable biological opinion issued by the National Marine 
Fisheries Service. The amendments also simplify the Aquatic Monitoring 
section of the EPPs, modify reporting requirements related to New 
Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, modify the 
criteria for reporting Unusual or Important Environmental Events, and 
remove the requirement for PSEG to submit an Annual Environmental 
Operating Report.
    Date of issuance: June 17, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 198, 308, 290. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15141A271; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70 and DPR-75: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
EPPs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 14, 2015 (80 FR 
20024). The supplemental letter dated April 9, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the public comments is 
contained in the safety evaluation dated June 17, 2015.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 
50-362, and 72-041, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), 
Units 1, 2, and 3, and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 
San Diego County, California
    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 21, 2014, March 17, 2015, and April 29, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the SONGS 
emergency plan 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 and how, in the unlikely event of certain severe, beyond-
design-basis accidents, sufficient time would be available to initiate 
appropriate mitigating actions, and if needed, for offsite authorities 
to implement protective actions to protect the public health and 
safety.
    Date of issuance: June 5, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--167; Unit 2--229; Unit 3--222. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15126A461; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-13, NPF-10, and NPF-15: The 
amendments revised the emergency plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 23, 2014 (79 
FR 77049). The supplemental letters dated March 17, 2015, and April 29, 
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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-260, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 2, Limestone County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: June 19, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 2, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and 
Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and Figures 3.4.9-1 through 3.4.9-2. The P/
T limits are based on proprietary topical report NEDC-33178P-A, 
Revision 1, ``GE [General Electric] Hitachi Nuclear Energy Methodology 
for Development of Reactor Pressure Vessel Pressure-Temperature 
Curves.'' NEDO-33178-A, Revision 1, is the non-proprietary version of 
the NRC-approved topical report.
    Date of issuance: June 2, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 314. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15065A049; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-52: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR 
5819).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 38768]]

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
    Date of application for amendment: June 30, 2014, as supplemented 
by letter dated July 28, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The license amendments approved the 
changes to the Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.15, ``Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' by replacing the reference to 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163 with a reference to Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, as the 
implementation document used to develop the North Anna performance-
based leakage testing program in accordance with Option B of 10 CFR 50, 
Appendix J.
    Date of issuance: June 16, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 274 and 257. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15133A381; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52070).
    The supplement dated January 28, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards 
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public 
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)

    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 for the 
amendment 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.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.

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

    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC's Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR's Reference staff 
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, the

[[Page 38769]]

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 petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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 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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing 
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any 
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], 
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital 
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern

[[Page 38770]]

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.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of application for amendment: May 15, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 19, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment extended the 
implementation period for Amendment No. 232, License Amendment Request 
for Changing Technical Specification Table 3.3.1.1-1 Function 7, 
``Scram Discharge Volume Water Level--High,'' which was issued on March 
27, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15063A010). Amendment No. 232 was 
effective as of the date of issuance (i.e., on March 27, 2015), and was 
required to be implemented prior to restarting from refueling outage R-
22, scheduled for spring 2015. Amendment No. 235 extends the 
implementation period for Amendment No. 232 to prior to restarting from 
refueling outage R-23, scheduled for spring 2017.
    Date of issuance: June 11, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to restarting from refueling outage R-23, scheduled for spring 
2017.
    Amendment No.: 235. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15154A800; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License to extend the implementation 
date of Amendment No. 232, issued on March 27, 2015, to prior to 
restarting from refueling outage R-23, scheduled for spring 2017.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was 
published in the Tri-City Herald, located in in Kennewick, Washington, 
from June 2 through June 4, 2015. The notice provided an opportunity to 
submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No 
comments were received.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, public comments, and final 
NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 
2015.
    Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1 (WBN-1), Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: May 29, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated June 5, 2015.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment provided a one-time 
change to Technical Specification Table 3.3.4-1, Function 4a, ``Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) Hot Leg Temperature Indication,'' to permit the 
temperature indication for RCS Loop 4 to be inoperable for the 
remainder of WBN-1 Operating Cycle 13.
    Date of issuance: June 12, 2015.
    Effective date: June 12, 2015.
    Amendment No.: 100. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15160A407; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. (NPF-90): The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. (The Advocate & Democrat and The Herald-News 
on June 7 and June 10, 2015 as well as The Daily Post-Athenian on June 
5 and June 8, 2015.) The notice provided an opportunity to submit 
comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments 
were received.
    The supplemental letter dated June 5, 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 Advocate & Democrat and The Herald-News on June 7, and 
June 10, 2015, as well as The Daily Post-Athenian, on June 5, and June 
8, 2015.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and NSHC determination are 
contained in a safety evaluation dated June 12, 2015.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June 2015.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-16539 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P