Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 32624-32634 [2015-13815]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32624-32634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13815]



[[Page 32624]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0142]


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 May 13, 2015 to May 27, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 26, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by July 9, 2015. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by August 10, 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-2015-0142. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov
     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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0142 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-2015-0142.
     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-2015-0142, 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

[[Page 32625]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 32626]]

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, in some instances, 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., (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: October 31, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14310A187.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to allow the use of the 
encoded ultrasonic examination technique in lieu of the FSAR committed 
additional radiography examination for certain piping welds fabricated 
to ANSI [American National Standards Institute] B31.1.0. The amendment 
would also revise the MPS2 Facility Operating License No. DPR-65.
    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:

    Criterion 1:
    Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Previously evaluated accident consequences are not impacted by 
the proposed amendment because credited mitigating equipment 
continues to perform its design function. The proposed amendment 
does not significantly impact the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated because those Systems, Structures and 
Components (SSCs) that can initiate an accident are not 
significantly impacted.
    Based on the above, DNC concludes that the proposed amendment to 
the MPS2 FSAR to allow the use of UT [ultrasonic] in lieu of RT 
[radiography] examination for certain piping welds fabricated to 
ANSI B31.1.0, does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident or transient previously 
evaluated in the safety analysis report.
    Criterion 2:
    Does the proposed amendment create the possibility for a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not create a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated because 
previously credited SSCs are not significantly impacted. The 
proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant and no new or different types of equipment will be installed. 
There is no impact upon the existing failure modes and effects 
analysis; and conformance to the single failure criterion is 
maintained.
    Based on the above, DNC concludes that the proposed amendment to 
the MPS2 FSAR to allow the use of UT in lieu of RT examination for 
certain piping welds fabricated to ANSI B31.1.0, does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident or transient from 
any previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3:
    Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the MPS2 FSAR will not cause an 
accident to occur and will not result in any change in the operation 
of the associated accident mitigation equipment. The proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in margin of 
safety because plant response to any transient or analyzed accident 
event is unchanged.

[[Page 32627]]

    Based on the above, DNC concludes the proposed amendment to the 
MPS2 FSAR to allow the use of UT in lieu of RT examination for 
certain piping welds fabricated to ANSI B31.1.0, 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
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. ML15099A393.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
definition of RATED THERMAL POWER and delete a footnote that allowed 
for stagered 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:

    Criterion 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.
    Criterion 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.
    Criterion 3:
    Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in 
the 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.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac 
County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15086A378.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the technical specifications (TS) requirements regarding steam 
generator tube inspections and reporting as described in TS Task Force 
(TSTF) traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator 
Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
    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 provided below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to 
modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG 
tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event 
is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a 
plant's licensing basis. 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 change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed 
those assumptions.
    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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Program will not 
introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or 
postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The 
proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their 
method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not 
impact any other plant system or component.
    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 
the 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 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.
    Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, 
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed 
change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The 
proposed change 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.

[[Page 32628]]

    Therefore, it is concluded that 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: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 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: April 16, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15107A333.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments propose to revise 
the Best Estimate Analyzer for the Core Operations-Nuclear (BEACON) 
power distribution monitoring system methodology described in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 4.3.2.2, ``Power 
Distribution,'' to the method described in the Westinghouse Electric 
Company LLC proprietary topical report (TR) WCAP-12472-P-A, Addendum 4, 
``BEACON Core Monitoring and Operation Support System.'' These 
amendments also propose to revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, 
``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' Section b to replace 
Westinghouse proprietary TR WCAP-11596-P-A, ``Qualification of the 
PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor 
Cores,'' with NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP-16045-P-A, 
``Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,'' and 
NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A, 
``Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology.''
    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 would revise the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow the use of the BEACON code 
methodology contained in the NRC-approved WCAP-12472-P-A, Addendum 
4, Revision 0, instead of the BEACON methodology contained in NRC-
approved WCAP-12472-P-A, Addendum 1-A. In addition, the proposed 
change would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``CORE 
OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' Section b to replace WCAP-11596-P-
A, ``Qualification of the Phoenix-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for 
Pressurized Water Reactor Cores,'' with NRC-approved WCAP-16045-P-A, 
``Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,'' and 
NRC-approved WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A, ``Qualification of the 
NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology,'' in the list of NRC-approved 
analytical limits used to determine core operating limits[,] 
[s]pecifically the limit for refueling boron concentration (i.e., 
the shutdown margin) required by TS 3.9.1, ``Boron Concentration.''
    The changes to the BEACON system and TS 5.6.5 core operating 
limits methodologies, which this license amendment proposes, are 
improvements over the current methodologies in use at the Diablo 
Canyon Power Plant (DCPP). The NRC staff reviewed and approved these 
methodologies and concluded that these analytical methods are 
acceptable as a replacement for the current analytical methods. Thus 
the BEACON system operation to perform power distribution 
calculations and the core operating limits determined using the 
proposed analytical methods will continue to assure that the plant 
operates in a safe manner and, thus, the proposed changes do not 
involve an increase in the probability of an accident.
    The BEACON system power distribution calculations and the core 
operating limits determined by use of the proposed new methodologies 
will not increase the reactor power level or the core fission 
product inventory, and will not change any transport assumptions or 
the shutdown margin requirements of the TS. In addition, the 
proposed changes will not alter any accident analyses assumptions 
discussed in the UFSAR. As such, the DCPP will continue to operate 
within the power distribution limits and shutdown margins required 
by the plant TS and within the assumptions of the safety analyses 
described in the UFSAR. As such, the proposed changes do not involve 
a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
    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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves the use of new and NRC-approved 
methodologies used by the BEACON System to perform core power 
distribution calculations and in TS 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS 
REPORT (COLR),'' to determine core operating limits (i.e., refueling 
boron concentration or shutdown margin requirement).
    The proposed change provides revised analytical methods for the 
BEACON system and determining core operating limit for refueling 
boron concentration, and does not change any system functions or 
maintenance activities. The change does not involve physical 
alteration of the plant, that is, no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed. The change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analyses and continues to assure the plant is 
operated within safe limits. This change does not create new failure 
modes or mechanisms that are not identifiable during testing, and no 
new accident precursors are generated.
    The BEACON system is not used to control the performance of any 
plant equipment. The BEACON system core power distribution 
calculations and core operating limits developed using the new 
methodologies will be determined using NRC-approved methodologies, 
and will remain consistent with all applicable plant safety analysis 
limits addressed in the DCPP UFSAR and the shutdown margin 
requirements of the TS. As such, use of the new BEACON and COLR 
methodologies will not cause a new or different accident.
    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 margin of safety is established through equipment design, 
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions 
are initiated. The proposed changes do not physically alter safety-
related systems, nor does it affect the way in which safety related 
systems perform their functions. The setpoints at which protective 
actions are initiated are not altered by the proposed changes. 
Therefore, sufficient equipment remains available to actuate upon 
demand for the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event. The proposed 
methodology changes are an improvement that will allow more accurate 
modeling of core performance and determination of the required 
refueling boron concentration. The NRC has reviewed and approved 
these methodologies for their intended use in lieu of the current 
methodologies; thus, the margin of safety is not reduced due to 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 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.

[[Page 32629]]

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: May 26, 2015. A publically-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15146A444.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4. The 
requested amendment proposes to depart from Tier 2* and associated Tier 
2 information in the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) (which includes the plant specific Design Control 
Document Tier 2 information) to revise the application of American 
Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, Specification for 
the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety Related Structures 
for Nuclear Facilities, to allow use of American Welding Society (AWS) 
D1.1-2000, Structural Welding Code-Steel, in lieu of the AWS D1.1-1992 
edition identified in AISC N690-1994.
    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 design functions of the nuclear island structures are to 
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category 
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. 
The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet 
seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29. 
The design functions of the seismic Category II portions of the 
annex building and turbine building are to provide integrity for 
non-seismic items located in the proximity of safety-related items, 
the failure of which during a safe shutdown earthquake could result 
in loss of function of safety-related items.
    The use of AWS D1.1-2000 provides criteria for the design, 
qualification, fabrication, and inspection of welds for nuclear 
island structures and seismic Category II portions of the annex 
building and turbine building. These structures continue to meet the 
applicable portions of ACI [American Concrete Institute] 349, the 
remaining applicable portions of AISC N690 not related to 
requirements for welding, including the supplemental requirements 
described in UFSAR Subsections 3.8.4.4.1 and 3.8.4.5, and the 
supplemental requirements identified in the UFSAR Subsection 3.8.3 
for structural modules. The use of AWS D1.1-2000 does not have an 
adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures, or 
seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine 
building to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to 
anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions. The change 
does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and 
fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response 
of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to 
the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or 
postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously 
evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, 
nor does the change described create any new accident precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change includes the use of AWS D1.1-2000 to provide 
criteria for the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection 
of welds for nuclear island structures and the seismic Category II 
portions of the annex building and turbine building. The proposed 
change provides a consistent set of requirements for welding of 
structures required to be designed to the requirements of ACI 349 
and AISC N690. The change to the details does not change the design 
function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid 
systems. The change to the weld details does not result in a new 
failure mechanism for the pertinent structures or new accident 
precursors. As a result, the design function of the structures is 
not adversely affected by the proposed change.
    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 AWS D1.1-2000 code is a consensus standard written, revised, 
and approved by industry experts experienced in welding and weld 
design. The proposed change adds AWS D1.1-2000 to the list of 
applicable codes and standards in the UFSAR. The 2000 edition 
includes criteria that consider directionality in the weld which 
allows for an increase factor on structural fillet weld strength 
relative to the angle of load direction. These changes are supported 
by tests that provide the justification for criteria that consider 
the directionality. The testing and analysis is reported in an AISC 
Journal Article, ``Proposed Working Stresses for Fillet Welds in 
Building Construction,'' by T. R. Higgins and FR Preece. These 
changes can be similarly applied to welds in the AP1000 to continue 
to provide the necessary safety margin. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15111A396.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) Section 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram 
Times,'' based on industry Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Change Traveler TSTF-460-A, Revision 0, that has been approved (August 
23, 2004; 69 FR 51864) generically for the boiling water reactor (BWR) 
Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-1433 (BWR/4). The required 
frequency of Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2 regarding control rod 
scram time testing will be changed from ``120 days cumulative operation 
in MODE 1'' to ``200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.'' The 200-day 
frequency is based on operating experience that has shown control rod 
scram times do not significantly change over an operating cycle.
    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 (NSHC) by adopting the NSHC that the NRC published on 
August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51854), which is presented below:

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control 
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The frequency 
of surveillance testing is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. The frequency of surveillance testing does not 
affect the ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, as 
the tested component is still required to be operable.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the

[[Page 32630]]

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control 
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed 
change does not result in any new or different modes of plant 
operation.
    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 extends the frequency for testing control 
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed 
change continues to test the control rod scram time to ensure the 
assumptions in the safety analysis are protected.
    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 
its own analysis, determines that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri
    Date of amendment request: March 12, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15071A403.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements in order to address 
NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency 
Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' 
dated January 11, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759), as described 
in TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-523-A, Revision 2, ``Generic 
Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML13053A075).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds Surveillance Requirements 
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the 
Containment Spray (CS) System, are not rendered inoperable due to 
accumulated gas and to provide allowances that permit performance of 
the 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.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CS System are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances that 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, the RHR System, and the CS System are 
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide 
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The 
proposed change 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: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri
    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated April 8, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15068A422 and ML15098A575.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam 
generator tube inspections and reporting as described in TS Task Force 
(TSTF) traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator 
Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML110610350), with some minor administrative differences.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to 
modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG 
tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event 
is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of 
the plant's licensing basis. 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 [an] SGTR is 
not increased. The consequences of [an] SGTR are bounded by the 
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The 
proposed change will not cause the

[[Page 32631]]

consequences of [an] SGTR to exceed those assumptions.
    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 changes to the Steam Generator Program will not 
introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or 
postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The 
proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their 
method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not 
impact any other plant system or component.
    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 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 the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant 
from the secondary system. These safety functions are maintained by 
ensuring integrity of the SG tubes.
    Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, 
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed 
change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The 
proposed change 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, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee' 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: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: April 11, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs), adding topical report BAW-10240(P)(A), 
``Incorporation of M5TM Properties in Framatome ANP Approved 
Methods,'' to the referenced analytical methods in TS 6.9.1.8.b, ``Core 
Operating Limits Report,'' as an acceptable method used to determine 
core operating limits for MPS2.
    Date of issuance: May 18, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 319. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15093A441; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 
FR 70212).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment deletes the 
Technical Specification (TS) Index and makes several other editorial, 
corrective and minor changes to the TSs.
    Date of issuance: May 20, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 320. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14093A027; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 
FR 70212).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted the Technical 
Specification (TS) index and made other editorial, corrective, and 
minor changes to the TSs.

[[Page 32632]]

    Date of issuance: May 20, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 261. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15098A034; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 
FR 70213).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: June 7, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated July 24, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) by deleting Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 
3.1.7.1, 3.1.7.2, and 3.1.7.3 of TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication,'' 
and renumbering SR 3.1.7.4 as SR 3.1.7.1.
    Date of issuance: May 27, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 241. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15068A386; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 
51222). The supplemental letter dated July 24, 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 SE dated May 27, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant Unit 2, Hartsville, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.9 for the Steam Generator Program accident-
induced leakage rate value for any design-basis accident, other than a 
steam generator tube rupture.
    Date of issuance: May 26, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 240. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15062A343; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 16, 2014 (79 
FR 55510).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated May 26, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: April 1, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs) by implementing Technical Specification 
Task Force Technical Change Traveler 510, Revision 2, ``Revision to 
Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample 
Selection.''
    Date of issuance: May 26, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 281 and 257. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15110A009; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the safety evaluation (SE) enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: Amendments 
revised the facility operating license and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38588).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated May 26, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: June 11, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified PNP 
technical specifications (TSs) to adopt the changes described in TS 
Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, ``Revise or Add 
Actions to Preclude Entry into [Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)] 
3.0.3--[Risk-Informed TSTF (RITSTF)] Initiatives 6b and 6c'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML113260461).
    Date of issuance: May 18, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15103A059; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52062).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 20, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specification (TS) Allowable 
Value for the Main Steam Line Tunnel Lead Enclosure Temperature-High 
instrumentation from an ambient temperature dependent (variable 
setpoint) to ambient temperature independent (constant Allowable 
Value). The changes deleted Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.6.1.2 and 
revise the Allowable Value for Function 1.g on Table 3.3.6.1-1, 
``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation.''
    Date of issuance: May 26, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 147. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

[[Page 32633]]

Accession No. ML15110A008; documents the Safety Evaluation related to 
this amendment enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11476). The supplemental letter dated March 20, 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 May 26, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412, 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, (BVPS-2) Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: June 2, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 8, 2014.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment changes the BVPS-2 
technical specifications (TS). Specifically, the amendment revised TS 
4.3.2, ``Drainage,'' to correct the minimum drain elevation for the 
spent fuel storage pool specified in the TS. In accordance with Title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B, Section 
XVI, ``Corrective Action,'' the amendment was required to resolve a TS 
discrepancy regarding an existing plant design feature.
    Date of Issuance: May 20, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 181. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15086A251.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58816).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendment: December 6, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated February 27, July 22, October 8, 2014, 
and February 4, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Updated 
Safety Analyses Report (USAR) to reflect updated radiological dose 
calculations based upon using an alternative source term methodology 
for the applicable design bases events and to revise the technical 
specification (TS) definition of DOSE EQUIVALENT IODINE-131.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 166. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15075A139; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the 
TSs and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR 
21298). The July 22, October 8, 2014, and February 4, 2015, supplements 
contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's 
initial proposed finding of no significant hazards condition.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 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: January 30, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 10, 2012, September 20, 2012, March 27, 2013, 
December 20, 2013, January 29, 2014, March 13, 2014, and February 25, 
2015.
    Description of amendment request: The original application proposed 
revisions to the technical specifications (TSs) for new and spent fuel 
storage as a result of the new criticality analyses for the new fuel 
vault (NFV) and spent fuel pool (SFP). By letter dated December 20, 
2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13360A045), NextEra requested that the SFP 
and NFV be separated into two separate license amendment requests. This 
amendment revised the TSs related to the NFV. On September 3, 2014, the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Amendment No. 142 that 
revised the TSs related to spent fuel storage as a result of new 
criticality analyses for the SFP.
    Date of issuance: May 18, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 148. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15118A632; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2012 (77 FR 
48559). The supplemental letters dated September 20, 2012, March 27, 
2013, December 20, 2013, January 29, 2014, March 13, 2014, and February 
25, 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 May 18, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: June 9, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 17, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Source--
Operating,'' to revise the emergency diesel generator steady-state 
voltage and frequency limits specified in Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
3.8.1.2, SR 3.8.1.6, and SR 3.8.1.9.
    Date of issuance: May 21, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--214; Unit 2--202. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15086A046; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: These 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the 
Technical Specifications.

[[Page 32634]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45479). The supplement dated December 17, 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 May 21, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment requests: February 20, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 25, 2013; September 15, 2014; and February 26, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.5.3, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling Systems]--
Shutdown,'' to remove Note 1 and change the Mode Applicability to 
eliminate the potential for non-conservative plant operation.
    Date of issuance: May 20, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--213; Unit 2--201. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15062A013; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: These 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 
51229). The supplement dated September 15, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register. The Commission issued a revised no 
significant hazards consideration on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13910), to 
consider the aspects of the proposed Mode Applicability change in the 
February 26, 2015, supplemental letter. The revised notice also 
included the correct initial submittal date of February 20, 2013.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 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: February 27, 2014, and supplemented by 
letter dated August 21, 2014.
    Description of amendment: The amendment revises the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report in regard to Tier 2 and Tier 2* information 
related to the CA03 structural module, which is the in-containment 
refueling water storage tank (IRWST) west wall. The changes sought to 
clarify the materials used in fabrication of the module, as well as the 
design details related to the horizontal stiffeners used to support the 
IRWST, and module legs used to anchor the module in place.
    Date of issuance: April 17, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 25. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15029A419; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 29, 2014 (79 FR 
24024). The supplemental letter dated August 21, 2014, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the 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 the Safety Evaluation dated April 17, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: February 4, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The license amendments approve 
changes to the Technical Specification (TS) TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position 
Indication,'' to provide an additional monitoring option for an 
inoperable control rod position indicator. Specifically, the proposed 
changes would allow monitoring of control rod drive mechanism 
stationary gripper coil voltage every eight hours as an alternative to 
using the movable in core detectors every eight hours to verify control 
rod position.
    Date of issuance: May 14, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 273 and 255. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15083A436. Documents related to the 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments 
changed the licenses and Technical Specification.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11488).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

ZionSolutions, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear Power 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: May 27, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 6, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Zion 
Nuclear Power Station Licenses to approve the revised Emergency Plan.
    Date of issuance: May 14, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 189 and 176.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-48: These amendments 
revise the Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014, (79 FR 
42553).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-13815 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P