Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 61658-61668 [2014-24355]

Download as PDF 61658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. 85,423, Abbott Vascular, Redwood City, California. July 14, 2013. 85,502, The ESAB Group, Inc., Florence, South Carolina. August 22, 2013. 85,504, National Instruments Corporation, Austin, Texas. August 25, 2013. 85,512, Alsip Acquisition LLC., D.B.A. Future Mark Alsip, Alsip, Illinois. August 28, 2013. 85,519, New England Paper Tube Co., Inc., Pawtucket, Rhode Island, September 2, 2013. Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. None. Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The workers’ firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 85,427, MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc., Lakewood, Colorado. 85,436, PST, Inc., D/B/A Business Performance Services, Cypress, California. 85,451, Fifth Third Mortgage Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Determinations Terminating Investigations of Petitions for Worker Adjustment Assistance After notice of the petitions was published in the Federal Register and on the Department’s Web site, as required by Section 221 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2271), the Department initiated investigations of these petitions. The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 85,531, Regal Beloit, Springfield, Missouri. 85,532, Pacific Interpreters, Portland, Oregon. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time. 85,457, LSI Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado. 85,520, Swisher International, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of September 15, 2014 through September 19, 2014. These determinations are available on the Department’s Web site www.tradeact/taa/taa_search_form.cfm under the searchable listing of determinations or by calling the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance toll free at 888–365–6822. Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of September 2014. Michael W. Jaffe, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2014–24274 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2014–0224] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. AGENCY: 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 September SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18, 2014 to October 1, 2014. The last biweekly notice was published on September 30, 2014. DATES: Comments must be filed by November 13, 2014. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 15, 2014. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2014–0224. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet C Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 0224 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable 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–2014–0224. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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. E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices • 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– 0224 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http:// www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 § 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 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 60day 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 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 61659 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 E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 61660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 EFiling 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 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 NRCissued 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/gettingstarted.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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 Webbased 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/esubmittals.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’s guidance available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/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 EFiling 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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 a toll-free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC’s electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1. nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 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. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: July 8, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14205A278. Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the Technical Specifications by revising or adding surveillance requirements (SRs) to verify that the system locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and to provide allowances that permit performance of the verification. The licensee proposed the changes to address NRC Generic Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759), as described in Revision 2 of Technical Specification Task Force523, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas Accumulation’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented as follows: 1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the Containment Spray (CS) System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any 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 or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, RHR System, and CS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to ensure that the subject systems are capable of performing their assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 61661 Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, Florida 33408–0420. Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: August 27, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14245A408. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requests approval for a change to the VCSNS licensing basis to incorporate a supplemental analysis to the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) accident. 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, to adopt a new analytical method to evaluate the effects of a SGTR, does not affect any accident initiators or precursors since there is no physical change to plant systems, structures and components [SSCs] or manner in which they are operated during normal operation. As such, the proposed change does not increase the probability of an accident. The ability of operators to mitigate the consequences of an accident is also not diminished as there is no impact on the design of mitigating plant systems that would reduce their design capability or increase their failure probability during normal operation or accident conditions. The present methodology for calculating mass transfer (i.e., from the reactor coolant system to the secondary side via the failed SG [steam generator] tube) for input to the radiological consequences of a postulated SGTR is conservative when compared with results from the new methodology. As such, the existing licensing basis methodology for calculating mass transfer will be retained. The calculated doses for the SGTR event for use in the FSAR [final safety analysis report] will be updated to reflect the results of the updated calculations with the reported doses to include 5 percent margin. Although slightly higher than the current analyses of record, the updated doses are well within regulatory limits and the increases are not more than minimal. Consistent with VCSNS’s current licensing basis, the dose calculations conform to the guidance presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, and Standard Review Plan [(SRP)] Section 15.0.1. E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 61662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES The use of this previously approved methodology (WCAP–10698–P–A) more accurately calculates the plant response to an SGTR event. The improved accuracy of the new methodology provides valuable information related to operator actions and associated timing. Such accurate transient response information enables enhancements to be made to the emergency operating procedures (EOPs) and allows future changes to be more effectively assessed for impact. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences or probability of occurrence 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 impact the design of affected plant systems, involve a physical alteration to the systems, or change to the way in which systems are currently operated, such that previously unanalyzed SGTRs would now occur. Since the design function and mode of operation of SSCs in the facility prior to a postulated accident are unchanged, the change to adopt a new analytical method to evaluate the effects of a tube rupture does not introduce any new malfunctions. Its use is beneficial in that it allows for a more accurate prediction of the plant response following a postulated SGTR to determine the time available for operator actions to prevent overfilling the affected SG. Thus, the proposed change does not affect or create new accident initiators or precursors or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The approval of the proposed change will not result in any modifications to affected plant systems that would reduce their design capabilities during normal operating and accident conditions. By using the WCAP– 10698–P–A methodology, a more accurate SGTR response is calculated. The improved understanding of the transient response enables enhancements to the EOPs, which provide further assurance the SSCs required for accident mitigation are available and that required actions can be accomplished in a time frame to prevent overfill of a ruptured SG. The SGTR dose consequences to be reported in the FSAR are well within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, and SRP 15.0.1. Given this, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 29218. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Southern Nuclear Operating Company Docket Nos.: 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 22, 2014, and revised by the letter dated September 23, 2014. Publicly-available versions are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14234A423 and ML14266A656, respectively. Description of amendment request: The license amendment request consists of changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plantspecific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 information and involves changes to Tier 2* and Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes associated with combined license (COL) Appendix C information. The proposed changes include: (a) Installation of an additional nonsafety-related battery; (b) Revision to the annex building internal configuration by converting a shift turnover room to a battery room, adding an additional battery equipment room, and moving a fire area wall; (c) Increase in the height of a room in the annex building; and (d) Increase in thicknesses of certain floor of the annex building. In addition, the proposed changes also include reconfiguring existing rooms and related room, wall, and access path changes. Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed additions of a new nonsafety-related battery, battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase, the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural internal wall, and the associated wall, room and corridor changes within the annex building do not adversely affect the fire loading analysis durations of the affected fire zones and areas (i.e., the calculated fire durations remain less PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 than their design values). Thus, the fire loads analysis is not adversely affected (i.e., analysis results remain acceptable). The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected. The proposed changes to the structural configuration, including anticipated equipment loading, room height, and floor thickness are accounted for in the updated structural configuration model that was used to analyze the Annex Building for safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and other design loads and load combinations, thus the structural analysis is not adversely affected. The structural analysis description and results in the UFSAR are unchanged. The relocated internal Annex Building wall is non-structural, thus this change does not affect the structural analyses for the Annex Building. The proposed changes do not involve any accident initiating event or component failure, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The rooms affected by the proposed changes do not contain or interface with safety-related equipment, thus the proposed changes would not affect any safety-related equipment or accident mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected. With the conversion of an annex building room to a battery room, the building volume serviced by nuclear island nonradioactive ventilation system decreases by approximate five percent. This reduced volume is used in the post-accident main control room dose portion of the UFSAR LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] radiological analysis. However, the volume decrease is not sufficient to change the calculated main control room dose reported in the UFSAR, and control room habitability is not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed additions of a new nonsafety-related battery, battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase, the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural internal wall, and their associated wall, room and corridor changes do not change fire barrier performance, and the fire loading analyses results remain acceptable. The room height and floor thickness changes are consistent with the annex building configuration used in the building’s structural analysis. The relocated internal wall is non-structural, thus the structural analyses for the annex building are not affected. The affected rooms and associated equipment do not interface with components that contain radioactive material. The affected rooms do not contain equipment whose failure could initiate an accident. The proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material release. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed additions of a new nonsafety-related battery, battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase, the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural internal wall, and their associated wall, room and corridor changes do not change the fire barrier performance of the affected fire areas. The affected rooms do not contain safety-related equipment, and the safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected. Because the proposed change does not alter compliance with the construction codes to which the annex building is designed and constructed, the proposed changes to the structural configuration, including anticipated equipment loading, room height, and floor thickness do not adversely affect the safety margins associated with the seismic Category II structural capability of the annex building. The floor areas and amounts of combustible material loads in affected fire zones and areas do not significantly change, such that their fire duration times remain within their two-hour design value, thus the safety margins associated with the fire loads analysis are not affected. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Blach & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203–2015. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart. 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 amendment request: August 27, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14246A190. Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment requests changes to the Technical Specification (TS) to revise TS Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2, for the North Anna Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Heatup Limitations and RCS Cooldown Limitations, respectively, for clarification and to be fully representative of the allowable operating conditions during RCS startup and cooldown evolutions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 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 clarification of TS Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not involve a physical change to the plant and does not change the manner in which plant systems or components are operated or controlled. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, system, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The P/T [pressure/temperature] curves on TS Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being modified and remain valid. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed amendment. 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 clarification of TS Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment; consequently, no new or different types of equipment will be installed. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The P/T curves on TS Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being modified, and the basic operation of installed plant systems and components is unchanged. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The existing RCS P/T curves on TS Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being modified. The proposed clarification of TS Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not alter any plant equipment, does not change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled, and has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. 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 does not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design basis and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 61663 review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. III. Previously Published Notices 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 following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration. For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14258A179. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Technical Specification 4.3.4.b to reflect the removal of the energy absorbing pad from the spent fuel pool and the installation of a leveling platform. Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: September 22, 2014 (79 FR 56608). Expiration date of individual notice: October 26, 2014 (public comments); November 22, 2014 (hearing requests). IV. 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 E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 61664 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission’s related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ section of this document. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–269, 50–270 and 50–287, Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of application for amendments: October 24, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated June 30, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the ONS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to clarify the Quality Assurance (QA) requirements for Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) equipment. The proposed change revises ONS UFSAR Section 3.1.1.1 to clarify that the QA requirements applied to certain equipment relied upon to perform the SSF function that existed prior to the construction of the SSF, will be consistent with the original QA requirements for that equipment. Date of Issuance: September 25, 2014. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 Amendment Nos.: 387, 389, and 388. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14254A246. Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: Amendments revised the licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR 9493). The supplemental letter dated June 30, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as noticed, and did not change the staff’s 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 September 25, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: May 1, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated August 21, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification 2.0, ‘‘Safety Limits (SLs),’’ by changing the safety limit minimum critical power ratio for both single and dual recirculation loop operation. Date of issuance: September 30, 2014. Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 30 days. Amendment No.: 307. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14258B189; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–59: The amendment revised the License and the Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45487). The supplemental letter dated August 21, 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 (NSHC) as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 determination is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Date of application for amendment: October 26, 2012, as supplemented by letters dated May 28 and August 28, 2013. Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted Paragraph 2.C.(32) of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Facility Operating License, which currently prohibits operating with partial feedwater heating for the purpose of extending the fuel cycle at rated power conditions. Date of issuance: September 25, 2014. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No: 199. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14162A378; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF– 29: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2013 (78 FR 9948). The supplemental letters dated May 28 and August 28, 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 September 25, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment requests: July 25, 2012, as supplemented by letters dated June 1, October 21, and November 14, 2013. Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical Specification 3.1.3 to allow the normally required near end-of-life Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) measurement to not be E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES performed under certain conditions. If these conditions are met, the MTC measurement would be replaced by a calculated value. Date of issuance: September 17, 2014. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented with 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 291 and 178. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14245A151; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–66 and NPF–73: Amendments revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53929). The supplements dated June 1, October 21, and November 14, 2013, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 17, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa Date of amendment request: August 29, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, and August 21, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Duane Arnold Energy Center Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.8.4.1 and 3.8.4.6 by changing the battery terminal voltage, the battery charger voltage, and amperage provided in these SRs to account for the replacement of the existing 58-cell 125 volts direct current (VDC) batteries with new 60-cell 125 VDC batteries. Date of issuance: September 26, 2014. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No.: 289. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14259A292; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–49: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 24, 2013 (78 FR VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 77732). The supplemental letters dated May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, and August 21, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California Date of amendment request: October 21, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated June 5, 2014, August 11, 2014, and September 15, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and removed certain requirements from the Section 5, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ portions of the SONGS Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications (TSs) that are no longer applicable to the units in a permanently defueled condition. Specifically, the amendments revised TS Sections 5.1, ‘‘Responsibility,’’ 5.2, ‘‘Organization,’’ and 5.3, ‘‘Facility Staff Qualifications,’’ to reflect new staffing and training requirements for operating staff. Date of issuance: September 30, 2014. Effective date: Upon issuance, to be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–227; Unit 3–220. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14183B240; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 10 and NPF–15: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 24, 2013 (78 FR 77733). The supplemental letters dated June 5, 2014, August 11, 2014, and September 15, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 61665 Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of application for amendments: August 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated February 24 and June 12, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Emergency Plan by revising certain Emergency Action Level thresholds by removing Main Steam Line radiation monitors RE–13119, RE– 13120, RE–13121, and RE–13122 to address limitations of these monitors. Date of issuance: September 30, 2014. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 172 and 154. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14170A911; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised the Emergency Plan. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 17, 2013 (78 FR 57184). The supplemental letters dated on February 24, and June 12, 2014, provided additional information clarifying the LAR, 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 as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. V. 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 E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 61666 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 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/doccollections/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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 EFiling 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 NRCissued 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/gettingstarted.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/esubmittals.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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 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 Webbased 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/esubmittals.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/esubmittals.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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 61667 documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC’s electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1. nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester County, New York Date of amendment request: September 15, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated September 18, 2014. Description of amendment request: The amendment inserts a temporary change to Surveillance Requirement E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 61668 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 3.8.6.6 by reducing the required Battery 22 capacity from 85 percent to 80 percent through March 6, 2015. The change is necessary because questions have been raised about the continued operability of the battery until the next scheduled surveillance test that is due by March 7, 2015. The questions are based on a concern that the Battery 22 will degrade and no longer meet Surveillance Requirement 3.8.6.6 before the next scheduled test and therefore must be demonstrated to meet the criteria to ensure strict technical specification compliance. Date of issuance: September 24, 2014. Effective date: As of its issuance date and shall be implemented upon approval. Amendment No.: 278. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14265A329; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. DPR– 26: The Amendment revised the technical specifications and the license. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC): Yes. A notice was published in the Journal News located in White Plains, New York, on September 19, 20, and 21, 2014. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission’s proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated September 24, 2014. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas Date of amendment request: September 10, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) to incorporate a one-time Completion Time extension in TS 3.4.15, ‘‘RCS [reactor coolant system] Leakage Detection Instrumentation.’’ The amendment added a Note to the 30day Completion Time of Required Action A.2 to extend the Completion Time to allow the continued operation for Cycle 20 with the containment sump level and flow monitoring system VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 inoperable until startup from a plant shutdown or startup from Refueling Outage 20 (spring 2015). Date of issuance: September 29, 2014. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 211. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14259A339; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–42. The amendment revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC): Yes. The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper on September 18–20, 2014, and the Wichita Eagle newspaper on September 22–24, 2014. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission’s proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated September 29, 2014. Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October 2014. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A. Louise Lund, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2014–24355 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362; NRC– 2014–0223] Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of receipt; availability; public meeting; and request for comment. AGENCY: On September 23, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received the Post-Shutdown SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) and the Site Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate (DCE), dated September 23, 2014, for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The PSDAR, which includes the DCE, provides an overview of Southern California Edison Company’s (SCE’s, or the licensee’s) planned decommissioning activities, schedule, projected costs, and environmental impacts for SONGS Units 2 and 3. The NRC will hold a public meeting to discuss the PSDAR and DCE and receive comments. DATES: Submit comments by December 22, 2014. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2014–0223. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Wengert, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–4037, email: Thomas.Wengert@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 0223 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable 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–2014–0223. E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61658-61668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24355]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0224]


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 September 18, 2014 to October 1, 2014. The 
last biweekly notice was published on September 30, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be filed by November 13, 2014. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by December 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0224. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet C Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0224 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-2014-0224.
     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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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.

[[Page 61659]]

     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-2014-0224 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 61660]]

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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 the NRC's 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 
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 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave

[[Page 61661]]

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.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: July 8, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14205A278.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
Technical Specifications by revising or adding surveillance 
requirements (SRs) to verify that the system locations susceptible to 
gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and to provide 
allowances that permit performance of the verification. The licensee 
proposed the changes to address NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing 
Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and 
Containment Spray Systems'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759), as 
described in Revision 2 of Technical Specification Task Force-523, 
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML13053A075).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided 
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 
which is presented as follows:

    1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Increase in 
the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS), the 
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the Containment Spray (CS) 
System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to 
provide allowances which permit performance of the revised 
verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject 
systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety 
function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. 
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any 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 or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CS System are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, 
the proposed change does not impose any new or different 
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Reduction in 
the Margin of Safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, RHR System, and CS System are not 
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances 
which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed 
change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to 
ensure that the subject systems are capable of performing their 
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive 
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the 
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability 
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there 
are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety 
limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely 
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this 
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, 
Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 27, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14245A408.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requests 
approval for a change to the VCSNS licensing basis to incorporate a 
supplemental analysis to the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 
accident.
    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, to adopt a new analytical method to 
evaluate the effects of a SGTR, does not affect any accident 
initiators or precursors since there is no physical change to plant 
systems, structures and components [SSCs] or manner in which they 
are operated during normal operation. As such, the proposed change 
does not increase the probability of an accident.
    The ability of operators to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident is also not diminished as there is no impact on the design 
of mitigating plant systems that would reduce their design 
capability or increase their failure probability during normal 
operation or accident conditions.
    The present methodology for calculating mass transfer (i.e., 
from the reactor coolant system to the secondary side via the failed 
SG [steam generator] tube) for input to the radiological 
consequences of a postulated SGTR is conservative when compared with 
results from the new methodology. As such, the existing licensing 
basis methodology for calculating mass transfer will be retained. 
The calculated doses for the SGTR event for use in the FSAR [final 
safety analysis report] will be updated to reflect the results of 
the updated calculations with the reported doses to include 5 
percent margin. Although slightly higher than the current analyses 
of record, the updated doses are well within regulatory limits and 
the increases are not more than minimal. Consistent with VCSNS's 
current licensing basis, the dose calculations conform to the 
guidance presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, and Standard Review 
Plan [(SRP)] Section 15.0.1.

[[Page 61662]]

    The use of this previously approved methodology (WCAP-10698-P-A) 
more accurately calculates the plant response to an SGTR event. The 
improved accuracy of the new methodology provides valuable 
information related to operator actions and associated timing. Such 
accurate transient response information enables enhancements to be 
made to the emergency operating procedures (EOPs) and allows future 
changes to be more effectively assessed for impact.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences or probability of occurrence 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 impact the design of affected plant 
systems, involve a physical alteration to the systems, or change to 
the way in which systems are currently operated, such that 
previously unanalyzed SGTRs would now occur. Since the design 
function and mode of operation of SSCs in the facility prior to a 
postulated accident are unchanged, the change to adopt a new 
analytical method to evaluate the effects of a tube rupture does not 
introduce any new malfunctions. Its use is beneficial in that it 
allows for a more accurate prediction of the plant response 
following a postulated SGTR to determine the time available for 
operator actions to prevent overfilling the affected SG. Thus, the 
proposed change does not affect or create new accident initiators or 
precursors or create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The approval of the proposed change will not result in any 
modifications to affected plant systems that would reduce their 
design capabilities during normal operating and accident conditions. 
By using the WCAP-10698-P-A methodology, a more accurate SGTR 
response is calculated. The improved understanding of the transient 
response enables enhancements to the EOPs, which provide further 
assurance the SSCs required for accident mitigation are available 
and that required actions can be accomplished in a time frame to 
prevent overfill of a ruptured SG.
    The SGTR dose consequences to be reported in the FSAR are well 
within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, 
and SRP 15.0.1. Given this, there is no significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Docket Nos.: 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 22, 2014, and revised by the 
letter dated September 23, 2014. Publicly-available versions are 
available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14234A423 and ML14266A656, 
respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The license amendment request 
consists of changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design 
Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 information and involves changes to Tier 
2* and Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes associated with 
combined license (COL) Appendix C information.
    The proposed changes include:
    (a) Installation of an additional non-safety-related battery;
    (b) Revision to the annex building internal configuration by 
converting a shift turnover room to a battery room, adding an 
additional battery equipment room, and moving a fire area wall;
    (c) Increase in the height of a room in the annex building; and
    (d) Increase in thicknesses of certain floor of the annex building.
    In addition, the proposed changes also include reconfiguring 
existing rooms and related room, wall, and access path changes.
    Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the licensee 
also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD 
Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed additions of a new nonsafety-related battery, 
battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase, 
the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural 
internal wall, and the associated wall, room and corridor changes 
within the annex building do not adversely affect the fire loading 
analysis durations of the affected fire zones and areas (i.e., the 
calculated fire durations remain less than their design values). 
Thus, the fire loads analysis is not adversely affected (i.e., 
analysis results remain acceptable). The safe shutdown fire analysis 
is not affected. The proposed changes to the structural 
configuration, including anticipated equipment loading, room height, 
and floor thickness are accounted for in the updated structural 
configuration model that was used to analyze the Annex Building for 
safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and other design loads and load 
combinations, thus the structural analysis is not adversely 
affected. The structural analysis description and results in the 
UFSAR are unchanged. The relocated internal Annex Building wall is 
non-structural, thus this change does not affect the structural 
analyses for the Annex Building. The proposed changes do not involve 
any accident initiating event or component failure, thus the 
probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not 
affected. The rooms affected by the proposed changes do not contain 
or interface with safety-related equipment, thus the proposed 
changes would not affect any safety-related equipment or accident 
mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and 
release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the 
radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
    With the conversion of an annex building room to a battery room, 
the building volume serviced by nuclear island nonradioactive 
ventilation system decreases by approximate five percent. This 
reduced volume is used in the post-accident main control room dose 
portion of the UFSAR LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] radiological 
analysis. However, the volume decrease is not sufficient to change 
the calculated main control room dose reported in the UFSAR, and 
control room habitability is not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed additions of a new nonsafety-related battery, 
battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase, 
the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural 
internal wall, and their associated wall, room and corridor changes 
do not change fire barrier performance, and the fire loading 
analyses results remain acceptable. The room height and floor 
thickness changes are consistent with the annex building 
configuration used in the building's structural analysis. The 
relocated internal wall is non-structural, thus the structural 
analyses for the annex building are not affected. The affected rooms 
and associated equipment do not interface with components that 
contain radioactive material. The affected rooms do not contain 
equipment whose failure could initiate an accident. The proposed 
changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could 
result in a radioactive material release.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

[[Page 61663]]

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed additions of a new nonsafety-related battery, 
battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase, 
the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural 
internal wall, and their associated wall, room and corridor changes 
do not change the fire barrier performance of the affected fire 
areas. The affected rooms do not contain safety-related equipment, 
and the safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected. Because the 
proposed change does not alter compliance with the construction 
codes to which the annex building is designed and constructed, the 
proposed changes to the structural configuration, including 
anticipated equipment loading, room height, and floor thickness do 
not adversely affect the safety margins associated with the seismic 
Category II structural capability of the annex building.
    The floor areas and amounts of combustible material loads in 
affected fire zones and areas do not significantly change, such that 
their fire duration times remain within their two-hour design value, 
thus the safety margins associated with the fire loads analysis are 
not affected.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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 amendment request: August 27, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14246A190.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
requests changes to the Technical Specification (TS) to revise TS 
Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, for the North Anna Units 1 and 2 Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) Heatup Limitations and RCS Cooldown Limitations, 
respectively, for clarification and to be fully representative of the 
allowable operating conditions during RCS startup and cooldown 
evolutions.
    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 clarification of TS Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 
does not involve a physical change to the plant and does not change 
the manner in which plant systems or components are operated or 
controlled. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the 
ability of structures, system, and components (SSCs) to perform 
their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an 
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The P/T 
[pressure/temperature] curves on TS Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 are 
not being modified and remain valid.
    Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed 
amendment.
    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 clarification of TS Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 
does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment; 
consequently, no new or different types of equipment will be 
installed. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The P/T curves on TS 
Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 are not being modified, and the basic 
operation of installed plant systems and components is unchanged.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The existing RCS P/T curves on TS Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 
are not being modified. The proposed clarification of TS Figures 
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 does not alter any plant equipment, does not 
change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled, and 
has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. 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 does not result in plant operation 
in a configuration outside the analyses or design basis and does not 
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant 
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

III. Previously Published Notices 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 following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14258A179.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification 4.3.4.b to reflect the removal of the energy 
absorbing pad from the spent fuel pool and the installation of a 
leveling platform.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
September 22, 2014 (79 FR 56608).
    Expiration date of individual notice: October 26, 2014 (public 
comments); November 22, 2014 (hearing requests).

IV. 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

[[Page 61664]]

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 
and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made 
appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules 
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license 
amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

    Date of application for amendments: October 24, 2013, as 
supplemented by letter dated June 30, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the ONS 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to clarify the Quality 
Assurance (QA) requirements for Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) 
equipment. The proposed change revises ONS UFSAR Section 3.1.1.1 to 
clarify that the QA requirements applied to certain equipment relied 
upon to perform the SSF function that existed prior to the construction 
of the SSF, will be consistent with the original QA requirements for 
that equipment.
    Date of Issuance: September 25, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 387, 389, and 388. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14254A246. Documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 19, 2014 (79 
FR 9493). The supplemental letter dated June 30, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as noticed, and did not change the staff's 
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 September 25, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: May 1, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 21, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 2.0, ``Safety Limits (SLs),'' by changing the safety 
limit minimum critical power ratio for both single and dual 
recirculation loop operation.
    Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 307. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14258B189; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45487). The supplemental letter dated August 21, 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 (NSHC) as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC 
determination is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 
2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: October 26, 2012, as 
supplemented by letters dated May 28 and August 28, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted Paragraph 
2.C.(32) of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Facility Operating 
License, which currently prohibits operating with partial feedwater 
heating for the purpose of extending the fuel cycle at rated power 
conditions.
    Date of issuance: September 25, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 199. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14162A378; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2013 (78 
FR 9948). The supplemental letters dated May 28 and August 28, 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 September 25, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment requests: July 25, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 1, October 21, and November 14, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification 3.1.3 to allow the normally required near end-of-life 
Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) measurement to not be

[[Page 61665]]

performed under certain conditions. If these conditions are met, the 
MTC measurement would be replaced by a calculated value.
    Date of issuance: September 17, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
with 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 291 and 178. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14245A151; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2012 (77 
FR 53929). The supplements dated June 1, October 21, and November 14, 
2013, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 17, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: August 29, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, and August 21, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Duane 
Arnold Energy Center Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements 
(SRs) 3.8.4.1 and 3.8.4.6 by changing the battery terminal voltage, the 
battery charger voltage, and amperage provided in these SRs to account 
for the replacement of the existing 58-cell 125 volts direct current 
(VDC) batteries with new 60-cell 125 VDC batteries.
    Date of issuance: September 26, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 289. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14259A292; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 24, 2013 (78 
FR 77732). The supplemental letters dated May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, 
and August 21, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, San 
Diego County, California

    Date of amendment request: October 21, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 5, 2014, August 11, 2014, and September 15, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and removed 
certain requirements from the Section 5, ``Administrative Controls,'' 
portions of the SONGS Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications (TSs) that 
are no longer applicable to the units in a permanently defueled 
condition. Specifically, the amendments revised TS Sections 5.1, 
``Responsibility,'' 5.2, ``Organization,'' and 5.3, ``Facility Staff 
Qualifications,'' to reflect new staffing and training requirements for 
operating staff.
    Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
    Effective date: Upon issuance, to be implemented within 60 days of 
issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-227; Unit 3-220. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14183B240; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 24, 2013 (78 
FR 77733). The supplemental letters dated June 5, 2014, August 11, 
2014, and September 15, 2014, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of application for amendments: August 20, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated February 24 and June 12, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Vogtle 
Electric Generating Plant Emergency Plan by revising certain Emergency 
Action Level thresholds by removing Main Steam Line radiation monitors 
RE-13119, RE-13120, RE-13121, and RE-13122 to address limitations of 
these monitors.
    Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 172 and 154. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14170A911; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 17, 2013 (78 
FR 57184). The supplemental letters dated on February 24, and June 12, 
2014, provided additional information clarifying the LAR, 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 as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

V. 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

[[Page 61666]]

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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 
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 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

[[Page 61667]]

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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 
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 
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 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: September 15, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 18, 2014.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment inserts a temporary 
change to Surveillance Requirement

[[Page 61668]]

3.8.6.6 by reducing the required Battery 22 capacity from 85 percent to 
80 percent through March 6, 2015. The change is necessary because 
questions have been raised about the continued operability of the 
battery until the next scheduled surveillance test that is due by March 
7, 2015. The questions are based on a concern that the Battery 22 will 
degrade and no longer meet Surveillance Requirement 3.8.6.6 before the 
next scheduled test and therefore must be demonstrated to meet the 
criteria to ensure strict technical specification compliance.
    Date of issuance: September 24, 2014.
    Effective date: As of its issuance date and shall be implemented 
upon approval.
    Amendment No.: 278. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14265A329; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The Amendment revised the 
technical specifications and the license.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. A notice was published in the Journal News 
located in White Plains, New York, on September 19, 20, and 21, 2014. 
The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the 
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been 
received.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a safety evaluation dated September 24, 2014.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: September 10, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to incorporate a one-time Completion Time 
extension in TS 3.4.15, ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Leakage 
Detection Instrumentation.'' The amendment added a Note to the 30-day 
Completion Time of Required Action A.2 to extend the Completion Time to 
allow the continued operation for Cycle 20 with the containment sump 
level and flow monitoring system inoperable until startup from a plant 
shutdown or startup from Refueling Outage 20 (spring 2015).
    Date of issuance: September 29, 2014.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14259A339; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment 
revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper on 
September 18-20, 2014, and the Wichita Eagle newspaper on September 22-
24, 2014. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the 
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been 
received.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a safety evaluation dated September 29, 2014.
    Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-24355 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P