Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 2747-2755 [2015-00787]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2747-2755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00787]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0006]


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 December 25, 2014 to January 7, 2015. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 6, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by February 19, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by March 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0006. 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: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; 301-415-1506, Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0006 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0006.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if 
that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a 
document is referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0006 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 https://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

[[Page 2748]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at 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 https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the

[[Page 2749]]

NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC 
Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using 
unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the 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 https://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 
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
    Date of application for amendments: November 7, 2014. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14315A084.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) associated with the primary 
containment leakage rate testing program. Specifically, the amendment 
would extend the frequencies for performance of the Type A containment 
integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) and the Type C containment 
isolation valve leakage rate test, required by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 
J, ``Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power 
Reactors.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions 
provided in [brackets]:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the 
PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years 
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The 
current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be 
extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the 
last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for 
selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no 
longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total 
maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only 
for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not 
involve either a

[[Page 2750]]

physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the 
plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to 
provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled 
release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated 
accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements 
invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment 
exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of 
an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of 
any precursors of an accident. The change in dose risk for changing 
the Type A test frequency from three-per-ten years to once-per-
fifteen-years, measured as an increase to the total integrated dose 
risk for all internal events accident sequences for PBAPS, is 5.99E-
02 person-rem/yr (0.52%) using the EPRI [Electric Power Research 
Institute] guidance with the base case corrosion included. The 
change in dose risk drops to 1.60E-02 person-rem/yr (0.14%) when 
using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. Therefore, this 
proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    As documented in NUREG-1493, Type B and C tests have identified 
a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the 
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by 
Type A testing is very small. The PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A test 
history supports this conclusion.
    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of 
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, 
and; (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined 
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or 
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative 
controls such as configuration management and procedural 
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment 
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance 
activities. The design and construction requirements of the 
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in 
accordance with ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] 
Section XI, the Maintenance Rule, and TS requirements serve to 
provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not 
degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based 
on the above, the proposed extensions do not significantly increase 
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously 
granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would 
have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; 
therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that 
has no effect on any component and no impact on how the units are 
operated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the 
PBAPS, Unit 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and 
the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The 
containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate 
the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability 
to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any 
accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not 
involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different 
type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the manner in 
which the plant is operated or controlled.
    The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously 
granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would 
have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; 
therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that 
does not result in any change in how the units are operated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of 
the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 
years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for 
selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in 
which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements 
and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist 
to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and 
leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is 
maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS 
is maintained.
    The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval 
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for 
PBAPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed surveillance interval extension 
is bounded by the 15-year ILRT [i]nterval and the 75-month Type C 
test interval currently authorized within NEI [Nuclear Energy 
Institute] 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the 
conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of 
containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment 
leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The 
containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section 
XI, TS and the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high degree of 
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is 
detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors 
ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is 
maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance 
criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in 
applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the 
acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by 
changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
    The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously 
granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for 
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would 
have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; 
therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action and 
does not change how the units are operated and maintained. Thus, 
there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
    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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President 
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon 
Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: August 26, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML14241A496).
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification Section 6.8.4.h, ``Containment Leakage Rate 
Testing Program,'' extending the interval for integrated leak rate test 
(ILRT) from the current 10 years to 15 years.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The NRC staff performed its own analysis, 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 licensee proposed to change only the frequency of performing 
the ILRT, extending it from the current 10 years to 15 years. No 
previously evaluated accidents were postulated to be caused by the 
frequency of ILRT; consequently, changing the frequency of ILRT 
alone does not increase the probability of occurrence of any 
previously evaluated accident.
    The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the design 
bases, performance,

[[Page 2751]]

or use of the containment system. Thus, the containment system will 
continue to perform its design functions during normal operation and 
during the course of an accident (i.e., the containment system will 
mitigate radiological consequences of accident as it was originally 
designed).
    Therefore, there will be no significant increase of the 
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 amendment does not involve any change in the design 
bases, performance or use of the containment system. Thus, no new or 
different kind of accident could be created by the proposed 
amendment.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve any new acceptance criteria 
or performance parameters. The containment system, under the 
proposed ILRT frequency, will continue to perform its original 
design functions under the original design and licensing bases. 
Thus, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
of margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
its own analysis, determines that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
    Date of amendment request: November 7, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14314A087.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change Technical Specification (TS) section 3.1, Table 3-3 for Fort 
Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to correct an administrative error in the 
surveillance method for the containment wide range radiation monitors.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to Technical Specification (TS) 3.1 Table 3-
3 corrects an administrative error to the stated surveillance method 
introduced by TS Amendment 152 [dated March 25, 1993; ADAMS 
Accession No. ML15005A051)], and will make the surveillance method 
for the containment high range radiation monitors consistent with 
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 11.2 for the range of 
the monitors and consistent with the guidance for special 
calibration of these monitors contained in NUREG-0737 
[``Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,'' November 1980; 
ADAMS Accession No. ML102560051] Table II.F.1-3. The proposed change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because: (1) The 
proposed amendment does not represent a change to the system design, 
(2) the proposed amendment does not alter, degrade, or prevent 
action described or assumed in any accident in the USAR from being 
performed, (3) the proposed amendment does not alter any assumptions 
previously made in evaluating radiological consequences, and [4]) 
the proposed amendment does not affect the integrity of any fission 
product barrier. No other safety related equipment is affected by 
the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the surveillance method to be 
consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0737 Table II.F.1-3. The 
proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, 
or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the 
plant. Hence, the proposed change does not introduce any new 
accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the 
capabilities of any plant structure or system in the performance of 
their safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this proposed 
change. Further, the proposed change does not change the design 
function of any equipment assumed to operate in the event of an 
accident. The change only corrects the surveillance method of the 
high range post-accident radiation monitors to be consistent with 
the design of the monitors and NUREG-0737.
    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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: November 25, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14329B244.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise technical specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR) 
4.7.2.1.1, to reduce the required run time of the control room 
emergency filtration subsystems, with heaters on, from a minimum of 10 
hours to a minimum of 15 minutes, consistent with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, 
``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 
hours per Month,'' with minor variations. The Notice of Availability 
and model safety evaluation of TSTF-522, Revision 0, were published in 
the Federal Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
    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 replaces an existing SR to operate each 
Control Room Emergency Filtration (CREF) subsystem equipped with 
electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a frequency controlled 
in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program] 
with a requirement to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous 
minutes with heaters on.
    This system is not an accident initiator and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing change is 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems

[[Page 2752]]

perform their design function which may include mitigating 
accidents. Thus the change does not involve a significant increase 
in the consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate each CREF 
subsystem with electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a 
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement 
to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with heaters on.
    The change proposed for this ventilation system does not change 
any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Condition for Operation is met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate each CREF 
subsystem with electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a 
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement 
to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with heaters on.
    The design basis for the CREF systems' heaters is to heat the 
incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater testing 
change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are 
capable of heating the air and will perform their design function. 
The proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the above, PSEG concludes that the proposed change 
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards 
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no 
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC-N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: November 20, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14324A969.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. The requested amendment proposes 
changes to revise the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
to clarify a human factors engineering operational sequence analysis 
related to the AP1000 Automatic Depressurization System and delete the 
Westinghouse Electric Company's document WCAP-15847, ``AP1000 Quality 
Assurance Procedures Supporting NRC Review of AP1000 DCD [Design 
Control Document] Sections 18.2 and 18.8,'' that is incorporated by 
reference into the UFSAR. Both of the requested changes constitute 
changes to information identified as Tier 2* information as defined in 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, Appendix D, 
Section II.F.
    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 deletion of WCAP-15847 removes obsolete and 
superseded procedures from the licensing basis. The amendment of the 
operational sequence analysis (OSA) task alters the automatic 
depressurization system (ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The 
proposed changes to the procedures do not involve any accident 
initiating component/system failure or event, and the change to the 
ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents would occur if the tests 
were performed in Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the accidents 
previously evaluated are not affected. The affected procedures and 
requirements do not adversely affect or interact with safety-related 
equipment or a radioactive material barrier, and this activity does 
not involve the containment of radioactive material. Thus, the 
proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident 
mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and 
release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the 
radiological releases in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
accident analyses are 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.
    Removing WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and amending the OSA task 
regarding ADS valve testing does not adversely affect the design or 
operation of safety-related equipment or equipment whose failure 
could initiate an accident other than what is already described in 
the licensing basis. These changes do not adversely affect safety-
related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety analysis or 
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 
the requested change.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to remove WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and 
amend the OSA task do not adversely affect any safety-related 
equipment, design code compliance, design function, design analysis, 
safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin because 
NQA-1 requirements are maintained in other Westinghouse procedures 
and testing of the ADS valves is still performed. 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, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the

[[Page 2753]]

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 Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina; 
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina Duke 
Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina; Duke Energy 
Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment requests: December 19, 2013. A redacted version 
was provided by letter dated March 31, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Cyber 
Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8 completion dates and the 
physical protection license conditions.
    Date of issuance: December 19, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of their issuance and shall be 
implemented within 30 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Brunswick, Unit 1: 266, Brunswick, Unit 2: 294, H. 
B. Robinson, Unit No. 2: 239, Shearon Harris, Unit 1: 144, and Crystal 
River, Unit 3: 245. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14318A929; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71, DPR-62, DPR-23, and 
NPF-63, and Facility Operating License No. DPR-72. The amendments 
revised the facility operating licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 06, 2014 (79 FR 
25899).
    The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 6, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 19, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) setpoints and allowable values for certain area 
temperature instrumentation associated with the leak detection system.
    Date of issuance: December 29, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 213 and 174. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14324A808; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 
18333). The supplemental letter dated September 19, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: February 4, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated March 24, 2014, and September 26, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted various 
reporting requirements contained in the Technical Specifications (TSs). 
Specifically, the amendment deleted the Sealed Source Contamination 
Special Report and the Startup Report, as well as the plant-specific 
annual reports regarding periodic Leak Reduction Program tests, 
Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve and Pressurizer Safety Valve 
challenges, specific activity analysis in which the primary coolant 
exceeds the limits of TS 3.1.4.1, and major changes to radioactive 
waste treatment systems.
    Date of issuance: December 30, 2014.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 284. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14330A300; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised 
the license and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR 
16882).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: November 7, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 21 and December 10 and 19, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised a limited 
number of Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements by adding a 
note or footnote permitting a one-time extension from a refueling 
frequency (i.e., at least once per 18 months) to a maximum of 28 
months.
    Date of issuance: December 29, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 279. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

[[Page 2754]]

Accession No. ML14356A012; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 17, 2014 (79 
FR 68487). The supplemental letters dated November 21 and December 10 
and 19, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final 
determination of no significant hazards consideration is contained in a 
safety evaluation dated December 29, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of application for amendments: August 15, 2014, as 
supplemented October 20, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) in response to the application dated 
August 15, 2014, as supplemented October 20, 2014. The amendments 
revise TS 3.8.7, ``Distribution Systems--Operating'' to add critical 
instrumentation Busses as a result of the licensee's decision to 
reconfigure its busses in order to comply with the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) Order EA-12-049, ``Order to Modify Licenses 
with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond Design 
Basis External Events (BDBEE).''
    Date of issuance: December 23, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the end of the spring 2016 refueling outage for Unit 1 and 
prior to the end of the spring 2015 refueling outage for Unit 2.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-272 and Unit 2-216. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14349A715; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52069). The supplemental letter dated October 20, 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 December 23, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of application for amendments: March 17, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specification Task 
Force traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin 
Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs,'' which is an approved 
change to the Standard Technical Specifications. The changes modify the 
TS definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to require calculation of 
the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68[emsp14][deg]F or a 
higher temperature that represents the most reactive state throughout 
the operating cycle.
    Date of issuance: January 6, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to reactor startup following Unit 1 refueling outage 1R27 (spring 
2016) and prior to reactor startup following Unit 2 refueling outage 
2R23 (spring 2015).
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-273 and Unit 2-217. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14345A895; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014, (79 FR 
42552).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2015.
    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 31, 2012, as 
supplemented May 17, July 2 and September 13, 2013, and May 2, July 22, 
and August 11, 2014. Publicly-available copies of these documents are 
available in ADAMS at Accession Nos. ML12248A035, ML13137A480, 
ML13184A267, ML13256A306, ML14122A364, ML14203A252 and ML14223A616.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
licensing basis for the VEGP by adding license conditions that allow 
for the voluntary implementation of the regulation in Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.69, ``Risk-informed 
categorization and treatment of structures, systems, and components for 
nuclear power reactors.'' As stated in 10 CFR 50.69, a licensee may 
voluntarily comply with 10 CFR 50.69 as an alternative to compliance 
with the following requirements for certain structures, systems and 
components (SSCs) after it submits and NRC approves an application for 
license amendment: (i) 10 CFR part 21; (ii) a portion of 10 CFR 50.46; 
(iii) 10 CFR 50.49; (iv) 10 CFR 50.55(e); (v) certain requirements of 
10 CFR 50.55a; (vi) 10 CFR 50.65, except for paragraph (a)(4); (vii) 10 
CFR 50.72; (viii) 10 CFR 50.73; (ix) Appendix B to10 CFR part 50; (x) 
certain containment leakage testing requirements; and (xi) certain 
requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100.
    Date of issuance: December 17, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 173 and 155. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14237A034. Documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52067). The supplemental letters dated May 17 and July 2, 2013, 
provide additional information that clarified the

[[Page 2755]]

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 December 17, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-00787 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P