Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 27193-27204 [2015-11225]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27193-27204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11225]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0117]


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 16, 2015, to April 29, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 28, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 11, 2015. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 13, 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-2015-0117. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 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: Lynn M. Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0117 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-2015-0117.
     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-2015-0117, 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

[[Page 27194]]

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 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 that 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

[[Page 27195]]

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 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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is

[[Page 27196]]

in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15065A031.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 1.3, ``Completion Times''; TS 3.7.5, 
``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System''; TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating 
Current] Sources--Operating''; and TS 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--
Operating,'' to remove the second completion times. The change would 
also revise Example 1.3-3 in TS 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' by adding a 
discussion of administrative controls to combinations of Conditions to 
ensure that the Completion Times for those conditions are not 
inappropriately extended.
    The proposed changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439-A, Revision 2, 
``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time From Discovery of 
Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition of Operation],'' dated June 
20, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051860296).
    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 change proposed by incorporating TSTF-439-A, Revision 2, 
eliminates certain Completion Times from the Technical 
Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of 
an accident during the revised Completion Times are no different 
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing 
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, 
or components from performing their intended function to mitigate 
the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits.
    The proposed change to modify certain Completion Times does not 
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological 
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change 
does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that 
may be released offsite, nor significantly increase the cumulative 
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant 
consequences.
    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 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. The proposed changes do not alter any assumptions made in 
the safety analyses.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to delete the second [Completion Time] and 
the related example of the second Completion Time does not alter the 
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety systems settings or 
limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The 
proposed change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside of the design basis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
    Date of amendment request: March 23, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15097A010.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
definition of RATED THERMAL POWER and delete a footnote that allowed 
for staggered implementation of the previously approved Measurement 
Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate.
    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.
    This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative 
non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely 
affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The 
proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, 
systems[,] and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function 
to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event witin the 
assumed acceptance limits.
    Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed 
amendment does not significantly increase 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 LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The 
proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any SSC 
or its function during accident conditions. No new or different 
accidents result from the changes proposed. The changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant or any changes in methods 
governing normal plant operation. The changes do not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Given the above discussion, it is concluded 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.
    This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The 
proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation 
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 
affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition.
    Given the above discussion, it is concluded [that] the proposed 
amendment does not involve 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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202.

[[Page 27197]]

    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station (CPS), Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 21, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14321A882 and ML15111A258, respectively.
    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. The proposed amendment was initially 
published in the Federal Register Biweekly Notice on February 17, 2015 
(80 FR 8361).
    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 an allowance to extend the 24-month interval by 25% 
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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
    Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14191A255.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise and 
add several Technical Specification surveillance requirements (SRs) to 
address concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas 
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and 
Containment Spray Systems.'' These changes are consistent with 
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 523, Revision 2, ``Generic 
Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
    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 SRs that require 
verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), Residual 
Heat Removal (RHR) System, Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, the 
Containment Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core Isolation 
Cooling (RCIC) System, as appropriate, 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.

[[Page 27198]]

    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, RHR, SDC, CS, and RCIC systems, as 
appropriate, 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?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, RHR, SDC, CS, and RCIC systems, as 
appropriate, 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: J. Bradley Fewell, Exelon Generation, 200 
Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
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 1, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15092A569.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2), 
technical specifications. Specifically, the proposed license amendment 
would revise various sections associated with steam generators and 
would include changes that are consistent with the guidance provided in 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 510, Revision 2, 
``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube 
Sample Selection'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML110610350).
    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, along with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3 
replaces the date and outage when all Alloy 800 sleeves shall be 
removed from service with a limitation on the individual sleeve 
service life from the date of installation. The allowed maximum 
service life previously approved for Alloy 800 sleeves remains 
unchanged. Since the maximum service life of the Alloy 800 sleeves 
is unchanged, the probability of a failure due to degradation does 
not increase.
    Implementation of the proposed changes to TS 5.5.5.2.f.3 have no 
significant effect on either the configuration of the plant or the 
manner in which is it operated. The consequences of a hypothetical 
failure of the leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeve/tube assembly are 
bound by the current steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) analysis 
described in the BVPS-2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
because the total number of plugged SG tubes (including equivalency 
associated with installed sleeves) is required to be consistent with 
accident analysis assumptions. A main steam line break or feedwater 
line break would not cause a SGTR since the sleeves are analyzed for 
a maximum accident differential pressure greater than that predicted 
in the BVPS-2 accident analysis. The sleeve/tube assembly leakage 
during plant operation would be minimal and is well within the 
allowable Technical Specification leakage limits and accident 
analysis assumptions, neither of which would be changed to 
compensate for the repair method.
    The proposed changes to TSs 3.4.20, 5.5.5, and 5.6.6 are 
consistent with TSTF-510, editorial corrections, and clarifications. 
Changes that are consistent with TSTF-510 and other editorial 
corrections and clarifications do not change the physical plant or 
how it is operated; therefore they cannot affect the probability or 
consequence of a previously-evaluated accident. A proposed change 
modifies the frequency of verification of SG [steam generator] tube 
integrity and SG tube sample selection. The proposed SG tube 
inspection frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to 
ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of 
a SGTR is not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by 
the conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. 
The proposed changes will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to 
exceed those assumptions.
    Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do 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.
    Proposed changes to Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3 replaces 
the date and outage when all Alloy 800 sleeves shall be removed from 
service with a limitation on the individual sleeve service life from 
the date of installation. The allowed maximum service life 
previously approved for Alloy 800 sleeves remains unchanged.
    Implementation of these proposed changes have no significant 
effect on either the configuration of the plant or the manner in 
which it is operated. The leak-limiting Alloy-800 sleeves are 
designed using the applicable ASME Code as guidance and meet the 
objectives of the original SG tubing. As a result, the functions of 
the SG will not be significantly affected by the installation of the 
proposed sleeve. Therefore, the only credible failure mode for the 
sleeve or tube is to rupture, which has already been evaluated. No 
new failure modes, malfunctions, or accident initiators have been 
created. The continued integrity of the installed sleeve/tube 
assembly is periodically verified as required by the Technical 
Specifications and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of a 
flaw in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the 
original tube wall in the sleeve-to-tube joint.
    The proposed changes to TSs 3.4.20, 5.5.5, and 5.6.6 are changes 
consistent with TSTF-510, editorial corrections, and clarification. 
These changes do not affect the operation of the SGs or the ability 
of the SGs to perform their design or safety functions; therefore 
they do not create new failure modes, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part 
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied 
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As 
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are 
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface 
between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat 
can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes 
also isolate

[[Page 27199]]

the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the 
secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is 
maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
    Proposed changes to Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3 replaces 
the date and outage when all Alloy 800 sleeves shall be removed from 
service with a limitation on the individual sleeve service life from 
the date of installation. The allowed maximum service life 
previously approved for Alloy 800 sleeves remains unchanged.
    The sleeve and portions of the installed sleeve/tube assembly 
that represent the reactor coolant pressure boundary will be 
monitored and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of a flaw 
in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the original 
tube wall in the leak-limiting sleeve/tube assembly. Design criteria 
and design verification testing ensures that the margin of safety is 
not significantly different from the original SG tubes.
    The proposed changes to TSs 3.4.20, 5.5.5, and 5.6.6 are changes 
consistent with TSTF-510, editorial corrections, and clarifications. 
The proposed changes will continue to require monitoring of the 
physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a 
reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current 
requirements.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve 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 W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, 
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida
    Date of amendment request: April 9, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 20, 2015, and April 3, 2015. Publicly available 
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14105A042, ML15069A153, 
and ML15113A311, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The NRC staff has previously made 
a proposed determination that the amendment request dated April 9, 
2014, involves no significant hazards consideration (79 FR 42551; July 
22, 2014). Subsequently, by letter dated April 3, 2015, the licensee 
provided additional information that expanded the scope of the 
amendment request as originally noticed. Accordingly, this notice 
supersedes the previous notice in its entirety.
    The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) by 
relocating specific surveillance frequency requirements to a licensee-
controlled program with implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) 04-10 (Revision 1), ``Risk-Informed Technical Specification 
Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance 
Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). The licensee stated 
that the NEI 04-10 methodology provides reasonable acceptance 
guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed 
changes to surveillance frequencies, consistent with Regulatory Guide 
1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: 
Technical Specifications'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740176). The 
licensee stated that the changes are consistent with NRC-approved 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specifications change TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance 
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 
5b,'' Revision 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The Federal 
Register notice published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the 
availability of TSTF-425, Revision 3. In the supplement dated April 3, 
2015, the licensee requested additional surveillance frequencies be 
relocated to the licensee-controlled program, editorial changes, 
administrative deviations from TSTF-425, and other changes resulting 
from differences between the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 TSs and the TSs 
on which TSTF-425 is based.
    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 relocates 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 
Technical Specifications 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 change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the surveillance frequencies for 
Surveillance Requirements that have a set periodicity from the TS to 
a licensee controlled Surveillance Frequency Control Program. This 
change does not alter any existing surveillance frequencies. Within 
the constraints of the Program, the licensee will be able to change 
the periodicity of these surveillance requirements. Relocating the 
surveillance frequencies does not impact the ability of structures, 
systems or components (SSCs) from performing there [sic] design 
functions, and thus, does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. 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 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. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), 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, FPL will 
perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained 
in NRC-approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1, in accordance with the TS 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, 
methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods 
for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance 
frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177, ``An 
Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decision-Making: 
Technical Specifications.''

[[Page 27200]]

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this 
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
    Date of amendment request: January 26, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15029A600.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specifications (TS) Section 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, 
Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel 
fuel oil and lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TS to the 
TS bases so that it may be modified under licensee control. The 
proposed amendment would also revise TS conditions to state ``a greater 
than 6-day and less 7-day'' supply of stored diesel fuel oil and lube 
oil inventory, in place of the numerical volume requirements, to be 
available for each diesel generator. The requirement to maintain a 7-
day supply of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is 
consistent with the assumptions in the accident analyses. The changes 
are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil 
and Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
    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 relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and 
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel 
generator; and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee 
control. The specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7-day and 
6-day supply is calculated using the NRC-approved methodology 
described in Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems 
for Standby Diesel Generators,'' and ANSI N195-1976, ``Fuel Oil 
Systems for Standby Diesel-Generators.'' The specific volume of lube 
oil equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day supply is based on the diesel 
generator manufacturer's consumption values for the run time of the 
diesel generator. Because the requirement to maintain a 7-day supply 
of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is consistent 
with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the actions taken 
when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil is less than a 6-day supply 
have not changed, neither the probability nor the consequences of 
any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 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. The change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures 
that the diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident 
analysis. The proposed change 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?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and 
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel 
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee 
control. As the bases for the existing limits on diesel fuel oil and 
lube oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident analysis 
assumptions and no margin of safety is reduced as part of this 
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: Mr. James Petro, P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, 
FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, 
South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 25, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14353A126 and ML15056A429, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Class 1E direct current and Uninterruptible Power Supply 
System, replacing four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare 
Battery Termination Box. 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 changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. The IDS design change involves 
replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare 
Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable routing 
changes. The proposed changes maintain the method used to manually 
connect the Spare Battery Bank and Spare Battery Bank Charger to 
supply loads of one of the four 24 Hour Battery Switchboards or one 
of the two 72 Hour Battery Switchboards at a time while maintaining 
the independence of the IDS divisions. Therefore, the probabilities 
of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report] are not affected.
    The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the 
ability of the IDS equipment to perform its design functions. The 
design of the IDS equipment continues to meet the same regulatory 
acceptance criteria, electrical codes, and standards as required by 
the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the 
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., accidents, 
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine 
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. In addition, the 
proposed changes do not have an adverse effect on any safety-

[[Page 27201]]

related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident; therefore, the 
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 do not change the design functions of IDS 
or any of the systems or equipment in the plant. The IDS design 
change involves replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a 
single Spare Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable 
routing changes, and the electrical equipment continues to perform 
its design functions because the same electrical codes and standards 
as stated in the UFSAR continue to be met. The proposed changes 
maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank 
and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24 
Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery 
Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS 
divisions. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any IDS or 
SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that 
results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events 
that affect safety-related or non-safety-related equipment. 
Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product 
release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, 
or create a new sequence of events that result in significant fuel 
cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The 
proposed changes do not result in changes to the IDS design 
requirements or design functions. The proposed changes maintain 
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing 
requirements of the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy 
the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and 
standards as stated in the UFSAR. These proposed changes do not 
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis 
input or result, or design/safety margin.
    Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by these proposed changes, no 
margin of safety is reduced.
    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 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 Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: April 26, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 12, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Oconee 
Nuclear Station (ONS) Technical Specifications (TSs) surveillance 
requirement to verify that acceptable steady-state limits on the 
electrical frequency are achieved by the two Keowee Hydro Units, which 
are the emergency power sources for the ONS.
    Date of Issuance: April 23, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 390, 392, and 391. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15093A349. Documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 9, 2013, 78 FR 
41121. The supplemental letter dated February 12, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 23, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
    Date of application for amendment: June 25, 2013, as supplemented 
by letters dated August 7, 2013; and February 13, July 16, and December 
9, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Palisades 
Nuclear Plant Site Emergency Plan Figure 5-2, ``Plant Staffing and 
Augmentation Requirements'' to increase augmentation response times for 
certain emergency response organization positions.
    Date of issuance: April 22, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 255. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15055A106; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

[[Page 27202]]

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR 
15148). The supplement letters dated August 7, 2013, and February 13 
and July 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 issued a revised no significant 
hazards consideration determination that was published in the Federal 
Register on January 6, 2015 (80 FR 523), to consider the aspects of the 
revised tasks associated with radiation protection technicians provided 
in the supplemental letter dated December 9, 2014.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 22, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
2, Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of application for amendment: February 6, 2015, as 
supplemented by letter dated February 24, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised a Note to 
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.1.3.1.2 to 
exclude Control Element Assembly (CEA) 18 from being exercised per the 
SR for the remainder of Cycle 24 due to a degrading upper gripper coil. 
The amendment allows the licensee to delay exercising the CEA until 
after repairs can be made during the upcoming fall 2015 outage.
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment No.: 302. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15096A381; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the 
TSs/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11475). The supplemental letter dated February 24, 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 and final no 
significant hazards consideration determination are contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
1, Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 6, March 10, March 25, and April 7, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.3, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and 
Temperature (P/T) Limits''; TS 3.4.9, ``Pressurizer''; TS 3.4.10, 
``Pressurizer Safety Valves''; and TS 3.4.11, ``Low Temperature 
Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System,'' to update the RCS P/T limits 
to 54 effective full power years (EFPY). The current P/T limits are 
applicable up to 31 EFPY.
    Date of issuance: April 24, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15096A324; 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 TSs/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 2015 (80 FR 
524). The supplemental letters dated February 6, March 10, March 25, 
and April 7, 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 24, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi
    Date of application for amendment: November 8, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 29, 2014; November 13 and 19, 
2014; and January 20 and 27, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to risk-inform requirements regarding selected 
required action end states by adopting Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler 423, Revision 1, ``Technical Specifications End 
States, NEDC-32988-A,'' with some deviations as approved by the NRC 
staff. This TS improvement is part of the consolidated line item 
improvement process. In addition, it approves a change to the facility 
operating license for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1. The 
change adds a new license condition for maintaining commitments 
required for the approval of this TSTF into the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report.
    Date of issuance: April 23, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No: 201. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15007A183; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR 
12245). The supplemental letters dated September 29, November 13, and 
November 19, 2014; and January 20 and January 27, 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 23, 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: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated July 22, 2014.

[[Page 27203]]

    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the 
Seabrook Station, Unit 1, Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full 
implementation date as set forth in the Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule.
    Date of issuance: April 22, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 146. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15058A706; 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.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR 
60519).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 22, 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: July 24, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 11, 2014, and January 9, 2015.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the 
Seabrook Technical Specifications (TS). The amendment increased the 
voltage limit for a full load rejection test of the emergency diesel 
generator specified in Surveillance Requirements 4.8.1.1.2.f.3 of TS 
3.8.1.1, ``A.C. Sources--Operating.'' The amendment also revised the TS 
definition of the terms ``Operable--Operability.''
    Date of issuance: April 24, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 147. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15082A233; 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 TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58821). The supplemental letters dated December 11, 2014, and 
January 9, 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 24, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, 
South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: May 20, 2014, and supplemented by the 
letters dated June 3, November 6, and November 20, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the 
facilities' combined operating licenses (COLs) to make changes to COL 
Appendix C and corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 information to 
correct editorial errors and/or consistency errors (e.g., 
inconsistencies between Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
(Tier 2) and Tier 1 information, and inconsistencies between 
information from different locations within Tier 1).
    Date of issuance: March 10, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 23. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14345B023; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment 
revised the facilities' COLs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52059). The supplemental letters dated June 3, November 6, and 
November 20, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 10, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia
    Date of amendment request: November 20, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment is to Combined 
Operating License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4. 
The amendment revises the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) to clarify a human factors engineering operational sequence 
analysis related to the AP1000 Automatic Depressurization System and 
will delete document WCAP-15847, ``AP1000 Quality Assurance Procedures 
Supporting NRC Review of AP1000 DCD Sections 18.2 and 18.8,'' that is 
incorporated by reference into the UFSAR. Both of the amendments 
constitute changes to information identified as Tier 2* information as 
defined in 10 CFR, part 52, appendix D, section II.F.
    Date of issuance: April 21, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 33. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15023A563; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 20, 2015 (80 FR 
2752).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 21, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: April 11, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 4, 2015.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification (TS) 4.2, ``Augmented Inspections,'' and TS 4.15, 
``Augmented Inservice Inspection Program for High Energy Lines Outside 
of Containment,'' by relocating them to the SPS Technical Requirements 
Manual (TRM), with the exception of the reactor coolant pump flywheel 
inspection. In addition, TS 6.4.U, ``Augmented Inspections and 
Examinations,'' is added to TS 6.4, ``Unit Operating Procedures and 
Programs.''
    Date of issuance: April 28, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 284 and 284. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15099A679; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.

[[Page 27204]]

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
42553). The supplemental letter dated March 4, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 28, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of May, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-11225 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P