Biweekly Notice;, 12241-12249 [2014-04687]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12241-12249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04687]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0037]


Biweekly Notice;

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

Background

    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 February 6; 2014 to February 19, 2014. The 
last biweekly notice was published on February 19, 2014 (79 FR 9490).

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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0037. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0037 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this document by any 
of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0037.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at https://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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this document (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0037 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in you 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://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

[[Page 12242]]

submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions 
into ADAMS.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    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.
    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 regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request 
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing 
or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in the 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 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital

[[Page 12243]]

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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.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 https://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 https://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 the NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://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 agency'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 Web site 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-helpe-submittals.html, by email at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866 672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: November 4, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specifications (TS) Sections 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas 
Treatment (SGT) System,'' 3.6.4.7, ``Fuel Building Ventilation System--
Fuel Handling,''

[[Page 12244]]

3.7.2, ``Control Room Fresh Air (CRFA) System,'' and 5.5.7, 
``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).'' These revisions will 
eliminate the operability and surveillance requirements for the heaters 
in the safety-related charcoal filter trains in those systems, revise 
certain charcoal test specifications, and reduce the duration of the 
monthly surveillance test of the filter trains.
    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 SGT ensures that radioactivity leaking into the secondary 
containment from design basis accidents is treated and filtered 
before being released to the environment. The FBVS [Fuel Building 
Ventilation System] ensures that radioactive materials that escape 
from fuel assemblies damaged following a design basis fuel handling 
accident are filtered and adsorbed prior to exhausting to the 
environment. The CRFA system is designed to maintain a habitable 
environment in the control room envelope for a 30-day continuous 
occupancy after a [design basis accident (DBA)]. None of these 
systems involve any accident precursors or initiators. None of the 
proposed changes involve any reduction in the reliability of the 
systems.
    This TS amendment request does not require or otherwise propose 
any physical changes to any system intended for the prevention of 
accidents or intended for the mitigation of accident consequences 
including the three systems. Neither does it involve any changes to 
the operation or maintenance of the three systems or to any other 
system designed for the prevention or mitigation of design basis 
accidents. This proposed TS change involves the elimination of the 
electric heater testing requirement and its concomitant increase in 
the testing criteria for relative humidity. The proposed revision to 
the allowable percent penetration through the FBVS filter carbon bed 
when challenged with methyl iodide during laboratory testing will 
have no adverse effects on current operating and accident off site 
dose calculations. With respect to the reduced duration of the 
monthly surveillance tests, the proposed duration of 15 minutes is 
adequate to ensure proper operation of the filter trains.
    For the above reasons, this TS amendment request will not result 
in a significant increase in the probability of occurrence, or the 
consequences, of a previously evaluated event.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This proposed change involves elimination of the testing 
requirements for the electric heaters in the three charcoal filter 
trains. This change is consistent with the charcoal test protocol 
already codified in the TS. However, no changes are being made to 
the way the filter trains, or any other system, are operated or 
maintained. Changes are being made to how the filter trains will be 
tested, but these changes will not result in the system being 
operated outside of its design basis. Since no new modes of 
operation are introduced, the probability of occurrence of an event 
different from any previously evaluated is not increased.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The operability requirements for the electric heaters in the 
three charcoal filter trains are eliminated by the proposed change. 
The laboratory testing criteria cited in TS 5.5.7.c for the relative 
humidity of the process air stream are being changed from 70% to 
95%. This is consistent with the test protocol required by [American 
Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM)] D3803-1983, which is already 
incorporated by reference in the TS. The capability of the charcoal 
filter trains to adsorb iodine in the process stream will remain 
unchanged. The proposed revision to the allowable percent 
penetration through the FBVS filter carbon bed when challenged with 
methyl iodide during laboratory testing will have no adverse effects 
on current operating and accident off site dose calculations. The 
proposed 15-minute duration of the monthly surveillance test 
provides adequate verification of the proper operation of the 
credited components.
    For these reasons, the margin of safety is not significantly 
reduced. Additionally, the elimination of the filter train heaters 
will significantly improve the safety margin in the performance of 
the emergency diesel generators by reducing their post-accident 
loads.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of amendment request: November 8, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specifications (TS) definition of ``Shutdown 
Margin'' (SDM) to require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator 
temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) or a higher temperature 
that represents the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. 
This change is needed to address new Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) fuel 
designs which may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 
68[emsp14][deg]F.
    This TS request is part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement 
Process (CLIIP) TS Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-535, ``Revise 
Shutdown Margin Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs.'' The 
Notice of Availability of the model application and model no 
significant hazards consideration determination was announced in 
Federal Register on February 26, 2013 (78 FR 13100).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an 
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the 
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents 
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for 
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM 
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel 
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed 
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 12245]]

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in 
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or 
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types 
at all times during the fuel cycle.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General Counsel--
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, 
Louisiana 70113. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of amendment request: November 8, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to risk-informed requirements regarding 
selected Required Action End States. Additionally, it would modify the 
TS Required Actions with a Note prohibiting the use of Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4.a when entering the preferred end 
state (Mode 3) on startup.
    This TS request is part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement 
Process (CLIIP) TS Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-423, Revision 1, 
``Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A,'' with some 
deviations noted. The Notice of Availability of the model application 
and model no significant hazards consideration determination was 
announced in Federal Register on February 18, 2011 (76 FR 9614).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
affirmed the applicability of the model no significant hazards 
consideration determination, 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 allows a change to certain required end 
states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in power operation 
will be exceeded. Most of the requested technical specification (TS) 
changes are to permit an end state of hot shutdown (Mode 3) rather 
than an end state of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the current 
TS. The request was limited to: (1) Those end states where entry 
into the shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) entry is 
initiated by inoperability of a single train of equipment or a 
restriction on a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise 
stated in the applicable TS, and (3) the primary purpose is to 
correct the initiating condition and return to power operation as 
soon as is practical. Risk insights from both the qualitative and 
quantitative risk assessments were used in specific TS assessments. 
Such assessments are documented in Section 6 of topical report NEDC-
32988-A, Revision 2, ``Technical Justification to Support Risk 
Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR 
[Boiling-Water Reactor] Plants.'' They provide an integrated 
discussion of deterministic and probabilistic issues, focusing on 
specific TSs, which are used to support the proposed TS end state 
and associated restrictions. The NRC staff finds that the risk 
insights support the conclusions of the specific TS assessments. 
Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is 
not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an 
accident after adopting TSTF-423 are no different than the 
consequences of an accident prior to adopting TSTF-423. Therefore, 
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement 
to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further 
minimize possible concerns.
    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 involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a change to certain 
required end states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in 
power operation are exceeded (i.e., entry into hot shutdown rather 
than cold shutdown to repair equipment) will not introduce new 
failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other 
unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed 
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of 
a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this 
change and the commitment by the licensee to adhere to the guidance 
in TSTF-IG-05-02, ``Implementation Guidance for TSTF-423, Revision 
1, `Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A,' '' will 
further minimize possible concerns.
    Thus, based on the above, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows, for some systems, entry into hot 
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is 
assessed and managed. The [BWR Owners Group's (BWROG's)] risk 
assessment approach is comprehensive and follows NRC staff guidance 
as documented in Regulatory Guides (RG) 1.174 and 1.177. In 
addition, the analyses show that the criteria of the three-tiered 
approach for allowing TS changes are met. The risk impact of the 
proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach 
recommended in RG 1.177. A risk assessment was performed to justify 
the proposed TS changes. The net change to the margin of safety is 
insignificant.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    Since the licensee has affirmed the applicability of the model no 
significant hazards consideration determination, it appears that the 
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: December 4, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 
(LCO) 3.5.1 to delete a note pertaining to the low pressure coolant 
injection (LPCI) mode of residual heat removal (RHR). The licensee's 
application stated the note was being deleted because plant operation 
in accordance with the note could result in potential damage to the RHR 
system.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:


[[Page 12246]]


    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No physical changes to the facility will occur as a result of 
this proposed amendment. The proposed change will not alter the 
physical design. Current TSs could make PBAPS [Peach Bottom Atomic 
Power Station] susceptible to potential water hammer in the RHR 
system if in the SDC [Shutdown Cooling] Mode of RHR in Mode 3 when 
swapping from the SDC to LPCI mode of RHR. The proposed LAR [license 
amendment request] will eliminate the risk for cavitation of the 
pump and voiding in the suction piping, thereby avoiding potential 
to damage the RHR system, including water hammer.
    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 alter the physical design, safety 
limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation 
of the plant. Accordingly, the change does not introduce any new 
accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the 
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform 
their safety function. Deletion of the TS Note is appropriate 
because current TSs could put the plant at risk for potential 
cavitation of the pump and voiding in the suction piping, resulting 
in potential to damage the RHR system, including water hammer.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change conforms to NRC regulatory guidance 
regarding the content of plant Technical Specifications. The 
proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, 
or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the 
plant.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett 
Square, Pennsylvania 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, 
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: July 3, 2013 (SQN-TS-12-04).
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) 3/4.6.5, ``Ice Condenser.'' 
The proposed changes would revise TS Limiting Condition for Operation 
3.6.5.1.d and TS Surveillance Requirement 4.6.5.1.d.2 to raise the 
overall ice condenser ice weight from 2,225,880 pounds (lbs) to 
2,540,808 lbs and to raise the minimum TS ice basket weight from 1145 
lbs to 1307 lbs, respectively. These changes are necessary to address 
the issues raised in Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL) 11-5, 
``Westinghouse LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] Mass and Energy Release 
Calculation Issues.'' The issues identified in NSAL-11-5 affected 
plant-specific LOCA mass and energy release calculation results that 
are used as input to the containment integrity response analyses. The 
basis for the proposed changes is provided in WCAP-12455, Revision 1, 
Supplement 2R, ``Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 
Units 1 and 2 Containment Integrity Reanalyses Engineering Report.''
    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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The analyzed accidents of consideration in regards to changes 
affecting the ice condenser are a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) 
and a main steam line break (MSLB) inside containment. The ice 
condenser is a passive system and is not postulated as being the 
initiator of any LOCA or MSLB and is designed to remain functional 
following a design basis earthquake. In addition, the ice condenser 
does not interconnect or interact with any systems that have an 
interface with the reactor coolant or main steam systems.
    For SQN, the LOCA is the more severe accident in terms of 
containment pressure and ice bed melt out, and is therefore the more 
limiting accident. The revised SQN LOCA containment integrity 
analysis determined that the post-LOCA peak containment pressure is 
below the containment design pressure and that the margin to ice 
meltout is maintained. The analysis assumes an ice weight that 
ensures sufficient heat removal capability is available from the ice 
condenser to limit the accident peak pressure inside containment.
    TVA has evaluated the effects of the increased ice condenser ice 
weight and determined that the increase in ice weight does not 
invalidate the ice condenser seismic qualification, does not 
adversely affect the capacity of the ice bed to absorb iodine during 
a LOCA, and does not diminish the boron concentration of the 
recirculated primary coolant during a LOCA. TVA has also evaluated 
differences between the as-built plant and the assumptions of the 
revised analysis and determined that the results of the revised 
analysis remain valid for Model 57AG steam generators and for AREVA 
Advanced W17 High Thermal Performance (HTP) fuel.
    The proposed changes reflect the ice weight assumed in the 
containment integrity analysis including conservative allowances for 
sublimation and weighing instrument systematic error. Accordingly, 
the proposed changes ensure that ice weight values maintain margin 
between the calculated peak containment accident pressure and the 
containment design pressure. The results of the analysis and the 
margins are maintained; therefore, the consequences of a previously 
evaluated accident are not adversely affected by the proposed 
changes.
    Because (1) the ice condenser is not an accident initiator, (2) 
the results of the revised analysis remain valid for Model 57AG 
steam generators and for AREVA Advanced W17 High Thermal Performance 
(HTP) fuel, and (3) the proposed changes to the TSs are limited to 
revision of the ice weight values to reflect the revised containment 
integrity analysis, there is no change in the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated in the SQN Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Based on the above discussions, the proposed changes do not 
involve an 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 ice condenser serves to limit the peak pressure inside 
containment following a LOCA or MSLB. The proposed changes are 
limited to the revision of the minimum ice weights specified in the 
TSs. The revised containment pressure analysis determined that 
sufficient ice would be present to maintain the peak containment 
pressure below the containment design pressure. No new modes of 
operation, accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of this proposed change.
    TVA has evaluated the effects of the increased ice condenser ice 
weight and determined that the increase in ice weight does not 
invalidate the ice condenser seismic qualification, does not 
adversely affect the capacity of the ice bed to absorb iodine during 
a LOCA, and does not diminish the boron concentration of the 
recirculated primary coolant during a LOCA. TVA has also evaluated 
differences between the as-built plant and the assumptions of the

[[Page 12247]]

revised analysis and determined that the results of the revised 
analysis remain valid for Model 57AG steam generators and for AREVA 
Advanced W17 High Thermal Performance (HTP) fuel. Because sufficient 
ice weight is available to maintain the peak containment pressure 
below the containment design pressure, the results of the revised 
analysis remain valid for Model 57AG steam generators and for AREVA 
Advanced W1 7 High Thermal Performance (HTP) fuel, and the increase 
in ice weight does not invalidate the ice condenser seismic 
qualification, the increased ice weight does not create the 
possibility of an accident that is different than any already 
evaluated in the SQN UFSAR.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The operability of the ice bed ensures that the required ice 
inventory will (1) be distributed evenly through the containment 
bays, (2) contain sufficient boron to preclude dilution of the 
containment sump following the LOCA and (3) contain sufficient heat 
removal capability to condense the reactor system volume released 
during a LOCA. These conditions are consistent with the assumptions 
used in the accident analyses.
    The revised analysis demonstrates that the ice condensers will 
continue to preclude over-pressurizing the lower containment and 
continue to absorb sufficient heat energy to assist in precluding 
containment vessel failure. TVA has evaluated the effects of the 
increased ice condenser ice weight and determined that the increase 
in ice weight does not invalidate the ice condenser seismic 
qualification, does not adversely affect the capacity of the ice bed 
to absorb iodine during a LOCA, and does not diminish the boron 
concentration of the recirculated primary coolant during a LOCA.
    The proposed changes are required to resolve non-conservative 
TSs currently addressed by administrative controls established in 
accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Administrative 
Letter 98-10. The revised containment integrity response analysis 
requires an increase in the required ice weight to ensure that the 
post-LOCA peak containment pressure remains within the design 
limits. As a result, the proposed changes restore margin between the 
accident peak pressure and the containment design pressure and 
resolve non-conservative TSs ice weight values currently under 
administrative controls. Accordingly, 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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of application for amendment: December 21, 2012, as 
supplemented by letters dated July 9, 2013, and October 17, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Fermi 2 
Technical Specification (TS) Section 1.1, Definitions, TS Section 
3.4.10, [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits, 
and TS Section 5.6, Reporting Requirements, by replacing the existing 
reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rates limits and the P/T limit 
curves with references to the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report at 
Fermi 2.
    Date of issuance: February 4, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 195.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 9, 2013 (78 FR 
21167). The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2013, and October 17, 
2013, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 4, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: February 7, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated March 8, April 5, June 7, July 15, and 
September 27, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Operating 
License and Technical Specifications to implement an increase of 
approximately 1.64 percent in rated thermal power from the current 
licensed thermal power of 3430 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3486 MWt. The 
changes are based on increased feedwater flow measurement accuracy, 
which will be achieved by utilizing Cameron International (formerly 
Caldon) CheckPlusTM Leading Edge Flow Meter ultrasonic flow 
measurement instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: February 10, 2014.

[[Page 12248]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
upon startup from the Sixteenth Refueling Outage.
    Amendment No.: 196.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 11, 2013 (78 FR 
35069). The supplemental letters dated March 8, April 5, June 7, July 
15, and September 27, 2013, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 10, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: July 25, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.7.4, ``Control Room Air Conditioning (AC) 
System,'' requirements by revising the Required Action and associated 
Completion Time for two inoperable control room air conditioning 
subsystems. The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TS 
Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-477, Revision 3. The 
availability of this TS improvement was announced in the Federal 
Register on March 26, 2007 (72 FR 14143), as part of the consolidated 
line item improvement process.
    Date of issuance: February 11, 2014.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 227.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 29, 2013 (78 FR 
64544).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 11, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
    Date of application for amendment: June 23, 2011, as supplemented 
by letters dated August 25, November 1, December 9, 2011; February 20, 
March 5, March 30 (two letters), April 27, May 16, June 26, August 8, 
September 13, and October 9, 2012; and July 5, September 5, October 8, 
October 24, November 13, and November 18, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the maximum 
power level specified in each unit's operating license to 3645 MWt, 
Technical Specification (TS) definition of rated thermal power to 3645 
MWt, TS Section 2.1.1 to modify the departure from nucleate boiling 
(DNB) ratio and use of DNB correlations, TS 3.4.1 and Surveillance 
Requirements (SR) to modify the reactor coolant system total flow rate 
for revised power conditions, and TS 5.6.5 to add analytical methods 
used to determine the core operating limits. In addition, the amendment 
changed the steam generator tube rupture and margin to overfill 
analysis.
    Date of issuance: February 7, 2014
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 174 and 181
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: (76 FR 76195, dated 
December 6, 2011.)
    The licensee's supplemental letters dated August 25, November 1, 
December 9, 2011; February 20, March 5, March 30 (two letters), April 
27, May 16, June 26, August 8, September 13, and October 9, 2012; and 
July 5, September 5, October 8, October 24, November 13, and November 
18, 2013, 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 February 7, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: July 26, 2013, as supplemented 
by letter dated October 16, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments aligned St. Lucie 
Technical Specifications (TSs) with NUREG-1432, Revision 4, Combustion 
Engineering Plants Standard Technical Specifications (STSs) describing 
the Administrative Controls requirements for the Responsibility and 
Organization, which includes Onsite and Offsite Organizations and the 
Unit Staff. The proposed amendment revised TSs 6.1, Responsibility and 
6.2, Organization to be consistent with STSs 5.1 Responsibility and 5.2 
Organization, which directly reference the requirements in 10 CFR 
50.54(m). The current Units 1 and 2 TSs 6.1 and 6.2 use custom language 
to define the requirements of the regulation.
    Date of issuance: February 7, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 217 and 167.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments 
revised the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 12, 2013 (78 
FR 67406).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: April 2, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Snubber 
Technical Specification 3/4.7.7 to conform to planned revisions to the 
snubber inservice inspection and testing program.
    Date of issuance: February 6, 2014.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance.
    Amendment No.: 195.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises 
the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 28, 2013 (78 FR 
31983).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a

[[Page 12249]]

Safety Evaluation dated February 6, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February, 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-04687 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P