Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 23598-23609 [2015-09758]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23598-23609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09758]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0104]


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 April 2, 2015, to April 14, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 14, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 28, 2015. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 29, 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-2015-0104. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For

[[Page 23599]]

technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear 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: Sandra Figueroa, Office of U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 
301-415-1262, email: Sandra.Figueroa@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0104 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-2015-0104.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0104, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC 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 the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which

[[Page 23600]]

may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's 
interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions 
which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 
proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the 
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the 
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 
10 CFR part 2.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital 
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC's 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

[[Page 23601]]

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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14301A112.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2) technical specification (TS) by 
relocating surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
TSs for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still 
required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the 
surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any 
mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different [kinds of] accidents result from utilizing 
the proposed changes. The changes do 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 changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components, specified in applicable 
codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) 
will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis 
(including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since 
these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. 
Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria 
as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in 
the relocated surveillance frequency, DNC will perform a 
probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC 
approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides 
reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk 
increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent 
with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: October 14, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14294A454.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 (MPS3) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
4.4.4.2 to remove the requirement to perform the surveillance for a 
pressurizer power-operated relief valve (PORV) block valve that is 
being maintained closed in accordance with technical specification (TS) 
3.4.4 Action a.
    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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which 
is presented below:


[[Page 23602]]



Criterion 1

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The block valve for the pressurizer PORV is not a potential 
accident initiator. Therefore, not requiring a surveillance of the 
block valve while it is being used to isolate its associated PORV 
will not increase the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated. Not requiring the surveillance of the block valve may 
slightly reduce the probability of a loss of coolant accident from a 
stuck open PORV since it will eliminate the challenge to the PORV 
from the pressure transient that results from cycling the block 
valve.
    The PORVs are credited in the MPS3 Final Safety Analysis Report 
(FSAR), Chapter 15, ``Accident Analysis,'' for event mitigation 
(Section 15.5.1, Inadvertent Operation of the Emergency Core Cooling 
System during Power, and Section 15.5.2, CVCS [chemical and volume 
control system] Malfunction that Increases Reactor Coolant 
Inventory). Not performing the surveillance on the block valve does 
not significantly reduce the assurance that the block valve is 
capable of opening to allow operation of the PORV. The block valves 
have been demonstrated by operating experience to be reliable and 
are also subject to the motor-operated valve testing program. 
Consequently, the proposed amendment does not significantly reduce 
the confidence that the block valve can be opened to permit 
automatic or manual actuation of the PORV to depressurize the RCS.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 2

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed 
amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment only affects the performance of the 
surveillance test for the block valve and does not involve any 
physical alteration of plant equipment or introduce any operating 
configurations not previously evaluated. The pressurizer PORV block 
valves provide isolation for a postulated stuck-open or leaking 
PORV. Isolation is satisfied with the block valve closed in 
accordance with TS 3.4.4 Action a.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 3

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed 
amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. 
These barriers are not significantly affected by the changes 
proposed herein. The margin of safety is established through the 
design of the plant structures, systems, and components, the 
parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment 
of setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond 
to an event, and thereby protect the fission product barriers. The 
proposed amendment to the surveillance requirement for the 
pressurizer PORV block valve does not affect the assumptions in any 
accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), Brunswick County, North 
Carolina
    Date of amendment request: January 30, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15044A198.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
emergency action levels (EALs) from a scheme based on Revision 5 of 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01 ``Methodology for Development of 
Emergency Action Levels,'' to a scheme based on NRC-endorsed Revision 6 
of NEI 99-01, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive 
Reactors.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], 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 to the BSEP emergency action levels does not 
impact the physical function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSC) or the manner in which SCCs perform their design 
function. The proposed change does not authorize the addition of any 
new plant equipment or systems, nor does it alter the assumptions of 
any accident analyses. The proposed change does not adversely affect 
accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which 
the plant is operated and maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to BSEP's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, does not authorize any 
physical changes to the plant systems or equipment. The proposed 
change will not introduce failure modes that could result in a new 
accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. The proposed change will not alter the design 
configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its 
normal functional capabilities. The BSEP ERO [Emergency Response 
Organization] functions will continue to be performed as required. 
The proposed change does not create any new credible failure 
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from those that have been 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to BSEP's EAL scheme does not alter or 
exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made 
to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result 
of the proposed change. The proposed change does not affect the 
Technical Specifications or the operating license. There are no 
changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of any SSC or the 
manner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of safety are 
unaffected by the proposed change to adopt the NEI 99-01, Revision 
6, EAL scheme guidance. The applicable requirements or 10 CFR 50.47 
and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve any reduction in 
a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, P.O. Box 
1551, Raleigh, NC 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

[[Page 23603]]

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 request: February 19, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15075A021.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would (1) revise 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing AREVA Topical Report ANP-
10298PA, ``ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation,'' Revision 0, 
March 2010, with Revision 1, March 2014, of the same topical report; 
and (2) revise Appendix B, ``Additional Conditions,'' by removing the 
license condition issued by Amendment Nos. 262 and 290 for Units 1 and 
Unit 2, respectively.
    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 probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the 
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The 
proposed license amendments only involve an update to a currently-
approved methodology for determining core operating limits. As such, 
the proposed license amendments do not involve any plant 
modifications or operational changes that could affect system 
reliability or performance, or that could affect the probability of 
operator error. As such, the proposed changes do not affect any 
postulated accident precursors. Since no individual precursors of an 
accident are affected, the proposed license amendments do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability of a previously 
analyzed event.
    The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences.
    AREVA Topical Report ANP-10298P-A, ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical 
Power Correlation, Revision 1, March 2014, is being adopted to 
resolve a previously identified concern with the calculation of the 
K-factor, which is a modelling parameter that characterizes the 
effect on critical power ratio of radial fuel rod peaking 
distribution within a fuel bundle. Adoption of AREVA Topical Report 
ANP-10298P-A, ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation, Revision 
1, also eliminates the need to perform a confirmatory evaluation as 
described in the Appendix B license condition issued as part of 
License Amendments 262 and 290 for Units 1 and 2. Therefore, the 
license condition is being eliminated.
    The adoption of AREVA Topical Report ANP-10298P-A, ACE/ATRIUM 
10XM Critical Power Correlation, Revision 1, March 2014, continues 
to ensure that the SLMCPR [safety limit minimum critical power 
ratio], setpoint, and core operating limit values determined using 
NRC-approved methods continue to satisfy the acceptance criteria 
that at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not 
experience boiling transition. Based on these considerations, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New 
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant 
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. 
The proposed amendments do neither. Core operating limit values are 
calculated using NRC-approved methodology identified in the TS. 
AREVA Topical Report ANP-10298PA, Revision 0, is an NRC-approved 
methodology listed in TS 5.6.5.b for determining core operating 
limits. Replacing the analytical methodology described in Topical 
Report ANP-10298PA, Revision 0, with the methodology contained in 
ANP-10298P-A, Revision 1, will ensure that (1) core operating limits 
are no longer affected by the K-factor calculation issue described 
in AREVA Operability Assessment CR 2011-2274, Revision 1, and (2) 
the current level of fuel protection is maintained by continuing to 
ensure that the fuel design safety criterion is met (i.e., that at 
least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience 
boiling transition if the MCPR [minimum critical power ratio] Safety 
Limit is not exceeded).
    The update of AREVA analytical methodology does not involve any 
new modes of plant operation or any plant modifications and does not 
directly or indirectly affect the failure modes of any plant systems 
or components.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The SLMCPR ensures that at least 99.9 percent of the fuel rods 
do not experience boiling transition during normal operation and 
anticipated operational occurrences, if the SLMCPR is not exceeded. 
Topical Report ANP-10298PA is listed as an NRC-approved analytical 
method in Technical Specification 5.6.5.b. Replacing the analytical 
methodology described in Topical Report ANP-10298PA, Revision 0, 
with the methodology contained in ANP-10298P-A, Revision 1, will 
ensure that (1) core operating limits are no longer affected by the 
K-factor calculation issue described in AREVA Operability Assessment 
CR 2011-2274, Revision 1, and (2) the current level of fuel 
protection is maintained by continuing to ensure that the fuel 
design safety criterion is met (i.e., that no more than 0.1 percent 
of the rods are expected to be in boiling transition if the MCPR 
Safety Limit is not exceeded).
    Meeting the fuel design criterion that at least 99.9 percent of 
all fuel rods in the core do not experience boiling transition and 
establishing core operating limits ensures the margin of safety 
required by the fuel design criterion is maintained. Therefore, the 
proposed amendments do not result in a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, P.O. Box 
1551, Raleigh, NC 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
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: December 15, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14351A069.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the requirements of Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.3, 
``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,'' and TS 3.7.3, ``Control Room 
Fresh Air (CRFA) System,'' to operate the ventilation systems with 
charcoal filters from 10 hours each month to 15 minutes each month, 
consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler 
TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance 
Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month.'' The Notice of 
Availability and model safety evaluation of TSTF-522, Revision 0, were 
published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which 
is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the

[[Page 23604]]

BWR [boiling water reactor]/6 SGT System and CRFA Systems equipped 
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days 
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes 
with heaters operating, if needed.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the BWR/6 SGT System and CRFA Systems 
equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 
31 days with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous 
minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
    The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not 
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the BWR/6 SGT System and CRFA Systems 
equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 
31 days with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous 
minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
    The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat 
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater 
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the 
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design 
function. The proposed change is consistent with [the NRC's] 
regulatory guidance.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
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: January 6, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 27, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML15006A238 and ML15089A126, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b, ``Core Operating Limits Report 
[COLR]'' by adding the following reference, NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8, 
``GE Hitachi Boiling Water Reactor Detect and Suppress Solution--
Confirmation Density [DSS-CD].''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review 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 NRC staff completed its review of NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 6, 
``General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Detect and Suppress 
Solution--Confirmation Density,'' a licensing topical report (LTR) 
and issued its safety evaluation on January 25, 2008 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML080310388). The NRC staff had concluded that this 
LTR is acceptable for referencing in licensing applications for 
nuclear power plants to the extent specified and under the 
limitations delineated in the accepted versions of the LTR. In 
addition, by letter dated November 19, 2013, LTR NEDE-33075P, 
Revision 8, has been approved for use in future licensing actions. 
The licensee proposes to add NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8, to TS 
5.6.5.b as Reference 27. The licensee demonstrated the applicability 
of this LTR for the GGNS in its submittal dated September 25, 2013 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13269A140). Adding this approved LTR to the 
TS 5.6.5.b will allow the licensee to use the approved DSS-CD 
methodology for preparing the COLR for the Maximum Extended Load 
Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) reloads following the approval of 
the MELLLA+ license amendment request. As such, adding this 
reference to TS 5.6.5.b, is administrative in nature.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The licensee proposes to add LTR NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8, to 
TS 5.6.5.b as Reference 27. The licensee demonstrated the 
applicability of this LTR for the GGNS in its submittal dated 
September 25, 2013. Adding this approved LTR to TS 5.6.5.b will 
allow the licensee to use the approved DSS-CD methodology for 
preparing the COLR for the MELLLA+ reloads following the approval of 
the MELLLA+ license amendment request. As such, adding this 
reference to TS 5.6.5.b, is administrative in nature.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The licensee proposes to add LTR NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8, to 
TS 5.6.5.b as Reference 27. The licensee demonstrated the 
applicability of this LTR for the GGNS in its submittal dated 
September 25, 2013. Adding this approved LTR to TS 5.6.5.b will 
allow the licensee to use the approved DSS-CD methodology for 
preparing the COLR for the MELLLA+ reloads following the approval of 
the MELLLA+ license amendment request. As such, adding this 
reference to TS 5.6.5.b, is administrative in nature.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: December 23, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15029A297.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the

[[Page 23605]]

Technical Specifications (TSs) related to Completion Times (CTs) for 
Required Actions (RAs) to provide the option to calculate a longer, 
risk-informed CT (RICT). A new program, the Risk-Informed Completion 
Time Program, would be added to TS Section 6.0, ``Administrative 
Controls.'' The methodology for using the RICT Program is described in 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical 
Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications 
(RMTS) Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A322). 
Adherence to NEI 06-09 would be required by the RICT Program. The 
licensee stated that the proposed amendments would be consistent with 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 505 TSTF-505, 
Revision 1, ``Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF 
[Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML111650552). 
The licensee requested that not all the modified RAs in TSTF-505 be 
included in the amendments. The licensee also requested that some 
plant-specific RAs be included in the amendments that were not included 
in TSTF-505. The Federal Register notice published on March 15, 2012 
(77 FR 15399), announced the availability of TSTF-505, Revision 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided 
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 
which is presented 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 permits the extension of Completion Times 
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance 
with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change 
involves no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not increase the consequences of an accident 
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems 
is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the 
extended Completion Time are no different from those during the 
existing Completion Time.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not change the design, configuration, 
or method of operation of the plant. The proposed change does not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind 
of equipment will be installed).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times 
provided risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC 
approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed change 
implements a risk-informed configuration management program to 
assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application 
of these new specifications and the configuration management program 
considers cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being 
out of service and does so more effectively than the current TS. 
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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, 
Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE), Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-
323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo 
County, California
    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15056A773.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments propose to 
incorporate into the licensing basis an analysis of pressurizer 
reaching a water-solid (filled) condition associated with the main 
feedwater pipe rupture accident summarized in Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.4.2.2. Further, the proposed 
amendments involve the addition of time critical operator actions and 
modifications of the PG&E Design Class I backup nitrogen accumulators, 
which are credited in the new pressurizer filling analysis.
    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 amendment provides an analysis of the FLB 
[feedwater line break] accident assuming the worst-case conditions 
that could result in pressurizer filling wherein water relief 
through the PSVs [pressurizer safety valves] may challenge the 
integrity of the reactor coolant boundary. The purpose of the 
pressurizer filling analysis is to determine the operator actions 
that preclude water relief through the PSVs if a FLB accident has 
occurred. The pressurizer filling analysis assumes an accident 
occurs and evaluates the plant response to the accident; therefore, 
the proposed amendment results in no change in the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment does not change any design functions of 
existing structures, systems and components (SSCs) and does not 
increase the likelihood of the malfunction of an SSC. The operator 
actions added by the amendment are designed to ensure the capability 
of SSCs to perform their design function by ensuring a PORV [power 
operated relief valve] is available to provide reactor coolant 
pressure relief and by terminating the pressurizer filling event 
before water is relieved from the PSVs.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not change any design functions of 
existing SSCs and does not affect the SSCs' operation or ability to 
perform their design function. The new FLB pressurizer filling 
analysis identifies operator actions that will prevent water relief 
through the PSVs. Simulator runs for the FLB pressurizer filling 
scenario have demonstrated that operator actions credited in the 
analysis are consistently completed in time to prevent water relief 
through the PSVs.
    Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The UFSAR (Section 15.4.2.2.3) currently credits the SSI 
[spurious safety injection] pressurizer filling analysis (in UFSAR 
Section 15.2.15.3) for the FLB pressurizer filling condition. The 
results of the new FLB pressurizer filling analysis indicate the 
response time for the operator action to ensure a PORV available 
during a FLB is not bounded by the existing analysis for the SSI 
pressurizer filling event. In addition, the analysis determined the 
PORVs need to cycle longer than accommodated by the current nitrogen 
supply to prevent water relief through the PSVs.

[[Page 23606]]

    The new analysis identifies operator actions to mitigate the 
pressurizer filling condition specific to a FLB accident. Simulator 
runs for a FLB scenario have demonstrated that operator actions 
credited in the analysis are consistently completed in time to 
prevent water relief through the PSVs.
    The new FLB analysis credits an increased number of PORV water-
relief cycles, which will be provided by modifications to increase 
the nitrogen supply to the PORV[s]. The PORVs have been qualified to 
perform the increased number of water-relief cycles and are 
environmentally qualified to withstand the harsh environment that 
could result from a FLB. Increasing the required number of PORV 
water-relief cycles does not alter the overall thermal hydraulic 
response of the RCS [reactor coolant system] and, therefore, has no 
effect on overall atmospheric steam releases. The PORV relief is not 
a source of radiological release since the RCS fluid remains inside 
containment and therefore is a negligible source of radiological 
release to the environment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC proposes to determine that the amendment 
requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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: December 18, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14353A107.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by 
revising line number information in Tier 1 and promote consistency with 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 information. 
The line number information includes the Automatic Depressurization 
System, the Passive Containment Cooling System, the Passive Core 
Cooling System, the Normal Residual Heat Removal System, the 
Containment Air Filtration System, Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System, and 
the Sanitary Discharge System piping line numbers to reflect the as-
designed configuration resulting from changes in piping layout or 
rerouting.
    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 the 
provisions of part 52, appendix D, section III.B of Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Design Certification Rule for 
the AP1000 Design, Scope and Contents.''
    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 COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier 
1 Tables proposed changes involve updating piping line name/number 
or functional capability requirements. These changes do not affect 
any system design function. Adding or updating information for 
existing ASME Section III piping does not involve (i.e., cannot 
affect) any accident initiating event or component failure, thus, 
the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not 
affected. The maximum allowable leakage rate specified in the 
Technical Specifications is unchanged, and radiological material 
release source terms are not affected, thus, the radiological 
releases in the 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 COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier 
1 Tables proposed changes to update piping line name/number or 
functional capability requirements do not adversely affect the 
design or quality of any structure, system, or component. Adding or 
updating ASME Section III piping line information for existing 
process piping lines to a licensing table does not create a new 
fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive 
material release.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier 
1 Tables proposed changes involve updating piping line name/number 
or functional capability requirements information for new/existing 
process piping lines. Adding or updating the ASME Section III piping 
line name/number or functional capability requirements in the tables 
would not affect any radioactive material barrier. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 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 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

[[Page 23607]]

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, 
Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of 
these items can be accessed as described in the ``Obtaining Information 
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: May 31, 2012, as supplemented 
by letters dated March 13, 2013, and November 25, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approve a 
conditional exception to the end of cycle moderator temperature 
coefficient surveillance requirement if certain conditions are met.
    Date of issuance: April 14, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 275, 271, 278, and 258. A publicly-available 
version of the application is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12153A328; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, and 
NPF-17: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 5, 2013 (78 FR 
8198). The licensee's March 13, 2013, and November 25, 2014, 
supplements provided clarifying information that did not change the 
scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original notice of 
proposed action published in the Federal Register, and did not change 
the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 14, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: August 22, 2014, as supplemented 
by letter dated December 23, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed Technical 
Specification 3.7.1, ``Standby Service Water (SW) System and Ultimate 
Heal Sink (UHS),'' TS Surveillance Requirement 3.7.1.1 related to 
verifying that the average water level in the UHS spray ponds is the 
average of the level in both ponds.
    Date of issuance: April 15, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 10 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 233. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15076A122; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 5, 2014 (79 
FR 53085). The supplemental letter dated December 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 April 15, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 12, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 10, and April 1, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
acceptance criteria for Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control 
Rod G-3. The change defers subsequent testing of Control Rod G-3 until 
repaired during the next forced outage of sufficient duration prior to 
the refuel outage of 2016 or during the refuel outage of 2016.
    Date of issuance: April 2, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 280. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15083A490; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 2, 2015 (80 FR 
11236). 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 NRC staff's original 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The 
comments are addressed in the Safety Evaluation referenced above.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
BraidwoodStation, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Exelon 
Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois; Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, DeWitt 
County, Illinois; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-10, 
50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, 
Grundy County, Illinois; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 
50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 
County, Illinois; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 
and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock 
Island County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: August 11, 2014 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML14224A245).
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
description of the Emergency Response Organization requalification 
training frequency for Exelon personnel defined in Exelon's governing 
Emergency Plans for the named stations from ``annually'' to ``once per 
calendar year not to exceed 18 months between training sessions.''
    Date of issuance: April 8, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 182, 182, 188, 188, 203, 44, 243, 236, 213, 199, 
256, and 251. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession 
No. ML14323A522. Documents related to these amendments are listed in 
the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66, 
NPF- 62, DPR-2, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-

[[Page 23608]]

18, DPR-29, DPR-30: The amendments revised the Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58815).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 8, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date amendment request: April 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 16, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) Technical Specifications (TS) 4.5M, 
``Shock Suppressors (Snubbers),'' to conform the TS to the revised 
OCNGS Snubber Inspection Program.
    Date of issuance: April 3, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 286. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15040A721; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38590). The supplemental letter dated October 16, 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 April 3, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 16, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 4, 2014, and March 23, 2015.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment changed the Beaver 
Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2) technical 
specifications (TS). Specifically, the amendment revised TS 5.5.12, 
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' Item a, by deleting 
reference to the BVPS-1 exemption transmittal letter dated December 5, 
1984 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003766713), and requiring compliance with 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, 
``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 
CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202) instead of 
Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak Test 
Program,'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740058) including listed 
exceptions. In summary, the amendment allows extension of the Type A 
Reactor Containment Integrated Leak test, required by 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix J, interval to one test in 15 years and an extension of the 
Type C test interval to 75 months, with a permissible extension period 
of 9 months (total of 84 months) for non-routine emergent conditions, 
based on acceptable performance history of the containment test as 
defined in NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A.
    Date of Issuance: April 8, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 293 and 180. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14322A461.
    Facility Operating License Nos DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45477). The supplemental letters dated November 4, 2014, and March 23, 
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 April 8, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment requests: February 6, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
technical specifications requirements for unavailable barriers by 
adding limiting condition for operation 3.0.8. The changes are 
consistent with the NRC approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change TSTF-427, ``Allowance 
for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System 
OPERABILITY,'' Revision 2.
    Date of issuance: April 6, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 327--Unit 1; 310--Unit 2. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15076A226; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: 
Amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11478).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 7, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 3, 2014, and March 18, 2015.
    Date of issuance: April 13, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves a revision 
to the emergency action levels from a scheme based on NEI 99-01, 
Revision 5, ``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels'' 
to a scheme based on NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency 
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.''
    Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be 
implemented within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 200. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15063A355; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR 
32771). The supplemental letters dated October 3, 2014, and March 18, 
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

[[Page 23609]]

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 April 13, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

    Date of application for amendment: June 3, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.1 and 
Surveillance Requirement 3.2.4.2 related to the reactor trip system 
instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: April 8, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--197, Unit 2--193. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15028A165, documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendments 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
42551).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 8, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2014, and supplemented by the 
letter dated December 12, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the 
Combined Licenses (COLs) to modify the fire area fire barriers of the 
turbine building switchgear rooms of the turbine building to 
accommodate the revised layout of the low and medium voltage switchgear 
and associated equipment.
    Date of issuance: April 1, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 32. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15037A045; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58812). The supplemental letter dated December 12, 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 April 1, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 29, 2014, and supplemented by the 
letter dated November 5, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the 
Combined Licenses (COLs) with regard to Tier 1 material and promoted 
consistency with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2.
    Date of issuance: February 13, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 30. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14350B012; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58812). The supplemental letter dated November 5, 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 February 13, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of April 2015.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-09758 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P