Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 8355-8368 [2015-03162]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8355-8368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03162]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0029]


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 January 22, 2015 to February 4, 2015. The 
last biweekly notice was published on February 3, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by March 19, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by April 20, 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-2015-0029. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For

[[Page 8356]]

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: O12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: Mable.Henderson@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0029 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0029.
     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. For 
the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials 
referenced in this document are provided in the ``Availability of 
Documents'' section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0029 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 
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

[[Page 8357]]

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 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 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

[[Page 8358]]

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.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont
    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14091A291.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Operating License and the associated Technical 
Specifications to Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications 
consistent with the permanent cessation of reactor operation and 
permanent defueling of the reactor.
    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 and staff's changes/additions 
are provided in [ ]:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would not take effect until [Vermont 
Yankee] (VY) has permanently ceased operation and entered a 
permanently defueled condition. [On January 12, 2015, Entergy 
Nuclear Operations, Inc. provided certifications in accordance with 
10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) that VY had permanently ceased power 
operations on December 29, 2014, and that as of January 12, 2015, 
all fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor vessel and 
placed in the spent fuel pool.] The proposed amendment would modify 
the VY [Operating License] (OL) and [Technical Specifications] (TS) 
by deleting the portions of the OL and TS that are no longer 
applicable to a permanently defueled facility, while modifying the 
other sections to correspond to the permanently defueled condition. 
This change is consistent with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 
50.36 for the contents of TS.
    Section 14 of the VY Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) describes the design basis accident (DBA) and transient 
scenarios applicable to VY during power operations. Once the reactor 
is in a permanently defueled condition, the spent fuel pool and its 
cooling systems will be dedicated only to spent fuel storage. In 
this condition, the spectrum of credible accidents will be much 
smaller than for an operational plant. Once the certifications are 
docketed by VY in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the 
consequent removal of authorization to operate the reactor or to 
place or retain fuel in the reactor vessel in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(2), the majority of the accident scenarios previously 
postulated in the UFSAR will no longer be possible and will be 
removed from the UFSAR under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
    The deletion of TS definitions and rules of usage and 
application, that will not be applicable in a defueled condition, 
has no impact on facility SSCs or the methods of operation of such 
SSCs. The deletion of design features and safety limits not 
applicable to the permanently shutdown and defueled status of VY has 
no impact on the remaining applicable DBA, the Fuel Handling 
Accident (FHA). The removal of [Limiting Conditions for Operation] 
(LCOs) or [Surveillance Requirements] (SRs) that are related only to 
the operation of the nuclear reactor or only to the prevention, 
diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor related transients or accidents 
do not affect the applicable DBAs previously evaluated since these 
DBAs are no longer applicable in the defueled mode. The safety 
functions involving core reactivity control, reactor heat removal, 
reactor coolant system inventory control, and containment integrity 
are no longer applicable at VY as a permanently defueled plant. The 
analyzed [design basis] accidents involving damage to the reactor 
coolant system, main steam lines, reactor core, and the subsequent 
release of radioactive material [as a result of those accidents] 
will no longer be possible at VY.
    After VY permanently ceases operation, the future generation of 
fission products will cease and the remaining source term will 
decay. The radioactive decay of the irradiated fuel following 
shutdown of the reactor will have reduced the consequences of the 
FHA below those previously analyzed.
    The spent fuel pool (SFP) water level, temperature and storage 
TSs are retained to preserve the current requirements for safe 
storage of irradiated fuel. SFP cooling and makeup related equipment 
and support equipment (e.g., electrical power systems) are not 
required to be continuously available since there will be sufficient 
time to effect repairs, establish alternate sources of makeup flow, 
or establish alternate sources of cooling in the event of a loss of 
cooling and makeup flow to the SFP.
    The TS for outdoor tanks that contain radioactivity that are not 
surrounded by liners, dikes, or walls capable of holding the tank 
contents, or that do not have tank overflows and surrounding area 
drains connected to the liquid radwaste treatment system are 
retained to preserve the current requirements for safe storage of 
radioactive liquids. Restricting the quantity of radioactive 
material contained in the specified tanks provides assurance that in 
the event of an uncontrolled release of the tanks' contents, the 
resulting concentrations would be less than the limits of 10 CFR 
part 20.1001-20.2402, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, at the nearest 
potable water supply and in the nearest surface water supply in an 
unrestricted area.
    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents 
is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition

[[Page 8359]]

will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the 
existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated 
accidents associated with reactor operation will no longer be 
credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly 
reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting 
the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation 
of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel 
itself. The removal of TS that are related only to the operation of 
the nuclear reactor or only to the prevention, diagnosis, or 
mitigation of reactor related transients or accidents, cannot result 
in different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than 
previously evaluated because the reactor will be permanently 
shutdown and defueled and VY will no longer be authorized to operate 
the reactor.
    The proposed deletion of requirements of the VY OL and TS do not 
affect systems credited in the accident analysis for the FHA at VY. 
The proposed OL and TS will continue to require proper control and 
monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.
    The proposed restriction on the SFP level is fulfilled by normal 
operating conditions and preserves initial conditions assumed in the 
analyses of the postulated DBA. The SFP water level, temperature, 
and storage TSs are retained to preserve the current requirements 
for safe storage of irradiated fuel.
    The TS for outdoor tanks that contain radioactivity that are not 
surrounded by liners, dikes, or walls capable of holding the tank 
contents, or that do not have tank overflows and surrounding area 
drains connected to the liquid radwaste treatment system are 
retained to preserve the current requirements for safe storage of 
radioactive liquids.
    The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms 
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers 
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since 
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only 
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses, 
such a condition does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident.
    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.
    Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for VY will no longer 
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of 
fuel into the reactor vessel once the certifications required by 10 
CFR 50.82(a)(1) are submitted, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), 
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor 
operation is no longer credible. The only remaining credible 
accident is a FHA. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect 
the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that 
impact the FHA.
    The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the OL and 
TS that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The 
requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the VY 
OL and TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the 
remaining applicable postulated accident; and as such, do not 
contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident 
analysis. Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor 
will no longer be possible because the reactor will be permanently 
shutdown and defueled and VY will no longer be authorized to operate 
the reactor.
    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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont
    Date of amendment request: September 4, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14254A405.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) Renewed 
Facility Operating License (OL) certain license conditions which impose 
specific requirements on the decommissioning trust agreement, on the 
basis that Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., has elected to subject its 
decommissioning trust agreement to the regulatory requirements for 
decommissioning trust funds that are specified in 10 CFR 50.75(h). The 
option to delete license conditions relating to the terms and 
conditions of decommissioning trust agreements and, instead, conform 
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY to the regulations adopted by the NRC's Final 
Rule for Decommissioning Trust Provisions published on December 24, 
2002 (67 FR 78332), was specifically contemplated by the provisions of 
10 CFR 50.75(h)(5).
    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 and staff's changes are provided 
in [ ]:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The requested changes delete certain license conditions 
pertaining to Decommissioning Trust Agreements currently in Section 
3.J of the VY OL.
    The requested changes are consistent with the types of license 
amendments permitted in 10 CFR 50.75(h)(5).
    The regulations of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(4) state ``Unless otherwise 
determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, 
the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a 
utilization facility that does no more than delete specific license 
conditions relating to the terms and conditions of decommissioning 
trust agreements involves no significant hazard considerations.''
    This request involves changes that are administrative in nature. 
No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected by 
the proposed changes.
    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.
    This request involves administrative changes to the license that 
will be consistent with the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.75(h).
    No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected 
by the proposed change[s] and no failure modes not bounded by 
previously evaluated accidents will be created.
    Therefore, the proposed change[s] do[es] 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.
    This request involves administrative changes to the license that 
will be consistent with the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.75(h).
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to 
the public.
    No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected 
by the proposed change[s]. Additionally, the proposed changes will 
not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits, will not 
relax any safety systems settings, or will not relax the

[[Page 8360]]

bases for any limiting conditions of operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change[s] do[es] 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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), Claiborne 
County, Mississippi
    Date of amendment request: June 26, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14177A270.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the GGNS Technical Specifications (TSs) Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs) for safety-related battery resistances in TS SRs 
3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5 for batteries 1A3, 1B3, and 1C3.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS SRs for safety-related 
battery resistances in TS SRs 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5. This change 
addresses a potential non-conservative TS value. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS SRs for safety-related 
battery resistances in TS SRs 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5. The change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS SRs for safety-related 
battery resistances in TS SRs 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. This change addresses a potential non-conservative TS 
value. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, LA 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi
    Date of amendment request: October 7, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 6, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14280A092, and ML15006A229, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise or add technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements 
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System 
(ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR)/Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, 
the Containment Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core Isolation 
Cooling (RCIC) System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated 
gas and to provide allowances, which permit performance of the revised 
verification. The changes are being made to address the concerns 
discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in 
Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray 
Systems.'' The proposed TS changes are based on NRC-approved TS Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, 
Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML13053A075). The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for 
TSTF-523, Revision 2, for plant-specific adoption using the 
consolidated line item improvement process, in the Federal Register on 
January 15, 2014 (79 FR 2700).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds Surveillance Requirement(s) 
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR)/Shutdown Cooling 
(SDC) System, the Containment Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor 
Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) 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 an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the RHR/SDC System, the CS System, and 
the RCIC 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 a 
margin of safety?

[[Page 8361]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the DHR [Decay Heat Removal]/RHR/SDC 
System, the CS System, and the RCIC 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 
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 has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, LA 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company (EGC), LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station (CPS), Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14321A882.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
technical specification (TS) 5.5.2, ``Primary Coolant Sources Outside 
Containment,'' to change the integrated leak testing frequency for 
systems subject to TS 5.5.2 and make the provisions of surveillance 
requirement (SR) 3.0.2 applicable to TS 5.5.2.
    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 the CPS, Unit 1, TS 5.5.2, ``Primary 
Coolant Sources Outside Containment'' program, does not involve a 
physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the 
plant is operated or controlled. The proposed amendment affects only 
the interval at which integrated system leak tests are performed, 
not the effectiveness of the integrated leak test requirements for 
the identified systems. The proposed change effectively results in 
the performance of the integrated system leak tests at the same 
frequency that these tests are currently being performed. 
Incorporation of the allowance to extend the 24-month interval by 
25%, as allowed by SR 3.0.2, does not significantly degrade the 
reliability that results from performing the surveillance at its 
specified frequency. Implementation of the proposed change will 
continue to provide adequate assurance that during design basis 
accidents, the containment and its components would limit leakage 
rates to less than the values assumed in the plant safety analyses.
    Test intervals are not considered as initiators of any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed 
amendment. TS 5.5.2 continues to require the performance of periodic 
integrated system leak tests. As stated in TS 5.5.2, the required 
plan provides controls to minimize leakage from those portions of 
systems outside containment that could contain highly radioactive 
fluids during a serious transient or accident to levels as low as 
practicable. Therefore, accident analysis assumptions will still be 
verified. The proposed change does not impact the purpose of this 
plan. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the probability and consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated will not be increased by this proposed change.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The testing requirements, to minimize leakage from those 
portions of systems outside containment that could contain highly 
radioactive fluids during a serious transient or accident, exist to 
ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident and do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. 
The proposed amendment affects only the interval at which integrated 
system leak tests are performed; they do not alter the design or 
physical configuration of the plant. 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 currently operated or controlled.
    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 change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions 
of the primary coolant sources outside containment program, as 
proposed, will continue to ensure that the leakage from the 
identified systems outside containment is minimized. The proposed 
amendment provides operating flexibility without significantly 
affecting plant operation.
    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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: October 30, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14303A635.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
the Combined Licenses in regard to removing an unneeded supply line 
from the Compressed and Instrument Air System (CAS) to the generator 
breaker package, and its associated Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) text referrals.
    Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control 
Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the 
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 
52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change deletes a nonsafety-related air supply line 
to the (main) generator

[[Page 8362]]

circuit breaker (GCB) from the CAS. The proposed changes do not 
involve any accident initiating component/system failure or event, 
thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not 
affected. The affected equipment does not 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 UFSAR 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.
    The proposed change deletes a nonsafety-related air supply line 
to the GCB from CAS. No structure, system or component (SSC) or 
design function is affected, thus no equipment whose failure could 
initiate an accident is involved. No new interface with components 
that contain radioactive material is created. The proposed change 
does 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 from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change deletes a nonsafety-related air supply line 
to the GCB from CAS. The proposed changes do not affect any safety-
related equipment or function. The UFSAR Chapters 6 and 15 analyses 
are not affected. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, 
thus a margin of safety is not directly nor indirectly affected.
    Therefore, the requested 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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    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 
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
    Date of amendment requests: September 25, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 17, 2012; June 28, 2013; July 15, 2013; July 31, 
2013; August 29, 2013; September 30, 2013; February 28, 2014; March 14, 
2014; April 10, 2014; June 26, 2014; August 15, 2014; August 29, 2014; 
November 20, 2014; and December 18, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorize the 
transition of the Brunswick fire protection program to a risk-informed, 
performance-based program based on the National Fire Protection 
Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805), ``Performance-Based Standard for 
Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 
2001 Edition, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). The NFPA 805 allows 
the use of performance-based methods, such as fire modeling and risk-
informed methods such as fire probabilistic risk assessment, to 
demonstrate compliance with the nuclear safety performance criteria.
    Date of issuance: January 28, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 266 and 294. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14310A808; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 13, 2013 (78 FR 
49300). The supplemental letters dated December 17, 2012; June 28, 
2013; July 15, 2013; July 31, 2013; August 29, 2013; September 30, 
2013; February 28, 2014; March 14, 2014; April 10, 2014; June 26, 2014; 
August 15, 2014; August 29, 2014; November 20, 2014; and December 18, 
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 January 28, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont
    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 21, 2014, and August 14, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the site 
emergency plan for the permanently defueled condition to reflect 
changes in the on-shift staffing and Emergency Response Organization 
staffing.
    Date of Issuance: February 4, 2015.

[[Page 8363]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 261. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14346A065. Documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment 
authorized revision to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site 
Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
42546).
    The supplemental letters dated May 21, 2014, and August 14, 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 as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 4, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The 
Safety Evaluation dated February 4, 2015, provides the discussion of 
the comments received from the state of Vermont.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 11, September 2, October 28, December 3, December 
23, 2014, and January 15, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment extended the ANO-1 
10-year frequency of the containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) 
to 15 years on a permanent basis. The amendment also revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.16, ``Reactor Building Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' by incorporating Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical 
report NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A, as the implementation document for the 
ANO-1 performance-based leakage rate testing program.
    Date of issuance: February 3, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15014A071; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 
18331). The supplemental letters dated September 2, October 28, 
December 3, December 23, 2014, and January 15, 2015, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 3, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, 
Ogle County, Illinois
    Date of amendment requests: August 31, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specifications Section 3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs),'' 
to incorporate the MSIV actuator trains into the Limiting Condition for 
Operation and provide associated Conditions and Required Actions. In 
addition, Surveillance Requirement 3.7.2.2 is revised to clearly 
identify that the MSIV actuator trains are required to be tested.
    Date of issuance: January 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No(s).: 181 and 187. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15007A555; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72. NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 
18332).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352 and No. 50-353, 
Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois
    Date of amendment requests: August 2, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the 
technical specification definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to 
require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68 
[deg]F or a higher temperature that represents the most reactive state 
throughout the operating cycle. This change addresses new boiling-water 
reactor fuel designs that may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures 
above 68 [deg]F.
    Date of issuance: January 29, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 202, 242, 235, 211, 197, 215, 197, 215, 176, 284, 
295, 298, 254, and 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14295A300; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, 
NPF-18, NPF-39, NPF-85, DPR-16, DPR-44, DPR-56, DPR-29, DPR-30: The 
amendments revise the Technical Specifications and Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 29, 2013 (78 FR 
64545).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a

[[Page 8364]]

Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
    Date of amendment requests: September 5, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments increase the peak 
calculated primary containment internal pressure which is specified in 
LSCS, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 5.5.13, ``Primary 
Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program.''
    Date of issuance: January 29, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 212 and 198. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14353A083; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 
FR 74182). The supplemental letters dated June 12 and October 7, 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 January 29, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie 
Plant, Unit 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: January 30, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the St. 
Lucie Plant, Unit 2 Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.9, ``Snubbers.'' 
This change revised the TS surveillance requirements for snubbers to 
conform to the revised St. Lucie Snubber Testing Program.
    Date of issuance: January 20, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 169. The Amendment is publicly-available in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML14342A785; documents related to this amendment 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58818). The supplemental letters dated July 21, 2014, and October 
23, 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 January 20, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements to address NRC Generic Letter 
(GL) 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, 
Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' as described in 
TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas 
Accumulation.''
    Date of issuance: January 27, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 251--Unit 1 and 255--Unit 2. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15014A249; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 12, 2014 (79 
FR 67202).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 27, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
    Date of amendment request: September 10, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 12, 2014, June 12, 2014, December 11, 2014, and 
January 8, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendment modifies the 
Seabrook Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendment 
revises TS 6.8.1.6.b, ``Core Operating Limits Report,'' by adding AREVA 
Licensing Report ANP-3243P, ``Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Fixed Incore 
Detector System Analysis Supplement to YAEC-1855PA,'' which supplements 
and modifies the previously approved methodology in YAEC-18855PA, 
``Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Fixed Incore Detector System Analysis,'' 
October 1992. The amendment also modifies the surveillance requirements 
associated with the heat flux hot channel factor and nuclear enthalpy 
rise hot channel factor to include revised uncertainty values when 
measurement is obtained using the fixed incore detector system.
    Date of issuance: February 4, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 143. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14363A275; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2014 (79 FR 
6649). The supplemental letters dated March 12, 2014, June 12, 2014, 
December 11, 2014, and January 8, 2015, provided additional information 
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the 
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 4, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: July 3, 2014.

[[Page 8365]]

    Brief description of amendment: The license amendment addresses 
changes related to the design details of the containment internal 
structural wall modules (CA01, CA02, and CA05).
    The amendment changes Tier 2 and Tier 2 * information in the VEGP 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), and the involved plant-
specific Tier 1 and corresponding combined license Appendix C 
information to allow the use of thicker than normal faceplates to 
accommodate local demand or connection loads in certain areas without 
the use of overlay plates or additional backup structures. Additional 
changes to the VEGP UFSAR and combined license Appendix C were approved 
to add clarity and consistency to the licensing basis. Associated 
Exemptions were also issued with the amendment.
    Date of issuance: January 13, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 29. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15005A210; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45480).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 13, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
    Date of amendment request: May 8, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments approved the revised 
schedule for implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP), and 
revised paragraph 2.F of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and 
NPF-80 for STP, Units 1 and 2, respectively, to incorporate the revised 
CSP implementation schedule. The CSP and associated implementation 
schedule for STP, Units 1 and 2 were previously approved by the NRC 
staff by letter dated July 26, 2011.
    Date of issuance: January 29, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--202; Unit 2--190. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14281A065; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2014 (79 
FR 53461).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: July 19, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 1, 2013; April 29, 2013; April 30, 2013; June 13, 
2013; October 21, 2013; December 18, 2013; January 31, 2014; April 2, 
2014; September 30, 2014; and December 5, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report hydrologic analysis and results, including 
the design basis flood elevations required to be considered in the 
flood protection of safety-related systems, structures, or components 
during external flooding events, and verifies the adequacy of the 
warning time for both rainfall and seismically induced dam failure 
floods.
    Date of issuance: January 28, 2015.
    Effective date: The amendment shall be implemented by May 30, 2015, 
after the commitments are completed as stated in Enclosure 9 of the 
supplement dated September 30, 2014.
    Amendment No.: 98. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15005A314; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 13, 2012 (77 
FRN 67686). The supplemental letters 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 January 28, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration determination comments 
received: No.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules 
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as 
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30

[[Page 8366]]

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, https://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 
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

[[Page 8367]]

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 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.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of amendment request: January 30, 2015.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment makes a one-time 
revision to Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.1, ``ECCS [Emergency Core 
Cooling System]--Operating,'' TS 3.6.1.5, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) 
Drywell Spray,'' and TS 3.6.2.3, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) 
Suppression Pool Cooling,'' to extend the Completion Time (CT) of 
Required Actions specifically associated with RHR System B 
inoperability from 7 days to 14 days. This extension will allow 
completion of a system modification, required testing, and system 
restoration. This amendment was necessitated by emergent issues that 
have delayed completion of activities to modify the 24-inch Division 2 
(Loop B) RHR suction piping.
    Date of issuance: February 1, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its day of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment No.: 230. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15030A501; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated February 1, 
2015.
    Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of February 2015.


[[Page 8368]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-03162 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P