Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 35978-35990 [2015-15275]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35978-35990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15275]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0155]


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 28, 2015, to June 10, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 9, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by July 23, 2015. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by August 24, 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-2015-0155. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0155 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-2015-0155.
     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-2015-0155, 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 will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter 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 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

[[Page 35979]]

amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its 
final determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should 
circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or 
shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to 
the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it 
will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the 
Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The 
Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request 
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing 
or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the 
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the 
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 
10 CFR part 2.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 35980]]

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, 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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS), York County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15125A149.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify the Emergency Action Levels for the CNS based on Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action 
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, 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.
    These changes affect the CNS Emergency Plan and do not alter any 
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant 
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an 
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the 
consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect 
any equipment related to accident mitigation. Based on this 
discussion, the proposed amendment does not 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.
    These changes affect the CNS Emergency Plan and do no alter any 
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. They do not modify any plant equipment and there is 
no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to perform 
their intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified and 
no changes are being made to the method in which plant

[[Page 35981]]

operations are conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the 
proposed changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident 
initiators or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind 
of accident.
    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 the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    These changes affect the CNS Emergency Plan and do not alter any 
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of the 
assumptions used in the accident analysis, not do they affect any 
operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the bases for 
technical specifications covered in this license amendment request.

    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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Docket 
Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; and 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 16, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15119A224.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam generator 
tube inspections and reporting as described in Technical Specification 
Task Force (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 presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change 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 [an] 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 [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 amendment 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 of 
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 amendment 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 [an] 
SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
    [SG] 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'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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North 
Carolina
    Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15141A047.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify the Emergency Action Levels for the MNS based on Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action 
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, 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.
    These changes affect the MNS Emergency Plan and do not alter any 
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant 
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an 
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the 
consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect 
any equipment related to accident mitigation. Based on this 
discussion, the proposed amendment does not 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.
    These changes affect the MNS Emergency Plan and do not any of 
the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. They do not modify any plant equipment and there is 
no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to perform its 
intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified and no 
changes

[[Page 35982]]

are being made to the method in which plant operations are 
conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the proposed 
changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident 
initiators or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind 
of accident.
    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 the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    These changes affect the MNS Emergency Plan and do not alter any 
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of the 
assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor do they affect any 
operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the bases for 
technical specifications covered in this license amendment request.

    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.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: May 20, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15140A611.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
full implementation date (Milestone 8) of the Arkansas Nuclear One, 
Units 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan (CSP), and revise the associated 
Physical Protection license conditions for each Renewed Facility 
Operating License.
    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 CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance 
capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to 
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact 
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    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.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In 
addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the 
CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken 
which provide adequate protection during this period of time. 
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result 
of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama
    Date of amendment request: May 12, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15132A722.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises and 
adds Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system locations 
susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and 
to provide allowances that permit performance of the verification. The 
licensee stated that the proposed amendment is consistent with 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-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 [and] 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 which permit performance 
of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems 
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a 
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject 
systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety 
function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. 
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises [and] 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

[[Page 35983]]

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 [and] 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: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of 
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness 
Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-424, Vogtle 
Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 (VEGP), Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: June 4, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15155B593.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to modify 
the VEGP Technical Specifications to provide a one-time change to 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency Core 
Cooling System]--Operating.'' This LCO requires that two ECCS trains be 
OPERABLE in Modes 1, 2, or 3. An ECCS train consists of a centrifugal 
charging system, a safety injection (SI) system, and a residual heat 
removal (RHR) system. Condition 3.5.2.A requires that, if one of the 
required trains is inoperable, and that 100 percent of the ECCS flow 
equivalent to a single OPERABLE ECCS train is available, then the 
inoperable train must be restored to OPERABLE status in 72 hours. 
Otherwise, the reactor must be taken to Mode 3 in 6 hours and to Mode 4 
in 12 hours.
    The proposed amendment revises the Completion Time (CT) for 
Condition 3.5.2.A from 72 hours to 7 days to allow for replacement of 
the train 1A RHR pump motor. This change will be applicable only one 
time on VEGP prior to the Cycle 19 shutdown.
    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 emergency core cooling systems (ECCS), including the 
Residual Heat Removal system, are designed for the mitigation of 
design basis accidents or transients, such as a Loss of Coolant 
Accident (LOCA).
    They are not designed, nor do they serve, for the prevention of 
those events. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not increase 
the probability of a previously evaluated accident occurring.
    Should an accident occur during the period of time that the RHR 
pump is out of service, the remaining ECCS components would serve to 
provide the minimum amount of flow assumed in the accident analyses. 
Even assuming failure of a charging pump or an SI system on either 
of the trains, sufficient ECCS flow would still be provided to the 
reactor vessel to mitigate the consequences of the event. 
Furthermore, a risk informed analysis performed in support of this 
amendment request demonstrates that the consequences of an accident 
are not significantly increased. As such, the proposed change does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
    Also, appropriate compensatory measures will be implemented 
during the time of the extended Completion Time for the RHR pumps. 
These actions are intended to decrease the chances of an initiating 
event occurring during the time of the extended CT and also to 
minimize the chances of losing any ECCS components.
    For the above reasons, the proposed changes will not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Replacement of the 1A RHR pump motor for the extended Completion 
Time period does not introduce any new or unanalyzed modes of 
operation. The replacement of the pump motor does not involve any 
unanalyzed modifications to the design or operational limits of the 
RHR system. Therefore, no new failure modes or accident precursors 
are created due to the motor replacement during the extended 
Completion Time.
    For the reasons noted above, the proposed change will not create 
the possibility of a new or different accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission 
product barriers to perform their design functions during and 
following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment. The 
performance of these fission product barriers will not be 
significantly affected by the proposed change. The risk implications 
of this amendment request were evaluated and found to be acceptable.
    During the extended Completion Time for the 1A RHR pump, the 
ECCS will remain capable of providing adequate flow to the reactor 
vessel to mitigate the consequences of a design basis event such as 
LOCA. Also, compensatory actions will be put in place to minimize 
the probability of an initiating event during the extended CT period 
as well as to minimize the chances of a loss of one of the remaining 
ECCSs. A risk informed analysis has also been performed which shows 
that the incremental plant risk has increased by an acceptable 
amount.
    For the reasons noted above, there is no 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP), Burke 
County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: May 6, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15128A239.

[[Page 35984]]

    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to modify 
the VEGP Technical Specifications to incorporate risk-informed 
requirements for selected Required Action end states. Specifically, the 
proposed change would permit a Required Action end state of Mode 4 
rather than an end state of Mode 5. The licensee states that the 
proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Technical Change Traveler 432-A, Revision 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 change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other 
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be 
entered if compliance with the Limiting Conditions for Operation 
(LCO) is not restored. The requested Technical Specifications (TS) 
permit an end state of Mode 4 rather than an end state of Mode 5 
contained in the current TS. In some cases, other Conditions and 
Required Actions are revised to implement the proposed change. 
Required Actions are not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The affected 
systems continue to be required to be operable by the TS and the 
Completion Times specified in the TS to restore equipment to 
operable status or take other remedial Actions remain unchanged.
    WCAP-16294-NP-A, Rev. 1, ``Risk-Informed Evaluation of Changes 
to [Technical Specification] Required Action Endstates for 
Westinghouse NSSS PWRs [nuclear steam supply system pressurized-
water reactors],'' demonstrates that the proposed change does not 
significantly increase the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated. [WCAP-16294-NP-A, Rev. 1 is publicly available in ADAMS 
at Accession No. ML103430249.]
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other 
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be 
entered if compliance with the LCO is not restored. In some cases, 
other Conditions and Required Actions are revised to implement the 
proposed change. 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. In addition, the change does not impose any new 
requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other 
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be 
entered if compliance with the LCO is not restored. In some cases, 
other Conditions and Required Actions are revised to implement the 
proposed change. Remaining within the Applicability of the LCO is 
acceptable because WCAP-16294-NP-A demonstrates that the plant risk 
in MODE 4 is similar to or lower than MODE 5. As a result, no margin 
of safety is significantly affected.
    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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke 
County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: May 12, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15132A662.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to adopt 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-523, Revision 
2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML13053A075), which is an approved change to the standard 
technical specifications, into the VEGP, Units 1 and 2 technical 
specifications.
    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 which permit performance 
of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems 
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a 
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject 
systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety 
function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. 
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, the RHR 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 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.

[[Page 35985]]

    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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP), Matagorda County, Texas
    Date of amendment request: April 23, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15121A818.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
STP Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam generator 
tube inspections and reporting based on Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF)-510-A, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program 
Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.'' The proposed change 
revises the TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.4.5, ``Steam 
Generator Tube Integrity''; Surveillance Requirement 4.4.5.2; 
Administrative Controls Specification 6.8.3.o, ``Steam Generator 
Program''; and TS 6.9.1.7, Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report. The 
proposed changes address implementation of inspection periods and other 
administrative changes.
    The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability of models for plant-
specific adoption of TSTF-510, Revision 2, in the Federal Register on 
October 27, 2011 (76 FR 66763), as part of the Consolidated Line Item 
Improvement Process (CLIIP). The notice referenced a model safety 
evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration determination 
published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475).
    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 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 [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 consequences of [an] SGTR to 
exceed those assumptions. The proposed change to reporting 
requirements and clarifications of the existing requirements have no 
[effect] on the probability or consequences of SGTR.
    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, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different type 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. In summary, the safety function of [an] 
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.
    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 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: Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama
    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15068A407.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) 
to require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 
68 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) or a higher temperature that represents 
the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This change is 
needed to address new boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel designs, which 
may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68 [deg]F. This 
proposed change is in accordance with the industry Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) initiative identified as Change 
Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to 
Address Advanced Fuel Designs.'' The availability of this TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register published on February 
26, 2013 (78 FR 13100), as part of NRC's Consolidated Line Item 
Improvement Process.
    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 definition of SDM. SDM is not an 
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the 
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents 
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for 
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM

[[Page 35986]]

definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel 
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed 
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change 
does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 
system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. 
The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in determining 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting 
conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types at all 
times during the fuel cycle.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: January 14, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15021A130.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would add a 
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) [TS 
4.11.C.5.d] to verify the Safety Injection (SI) System locations 
susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and 
to provide allowances, which permit performance of the verification.
    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 adds a Surveillance Requirement (SR) that 
requires verification that the SI System is not rendered inoperable 
due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit 
performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the SI 
System 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 SR ensures that the SI 
System continues to be capable of performing its assumed safety 
function and is not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. 
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds [an] SR that requires verification that 
the SI System is 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 adds [an] SR that requires verification that 
the SI System is not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and 
to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised 
verification. The proposed change adds a new requirement to manage 
gas accumulation to ensure the SI System is capable of performing 
its assumed safety functions. The proposed SR is comprehensive 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

III. Previously Published Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notice was previously published as a separate 
individual notice. The notice content was the same as above. It was 
published as an individual notice either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. It is repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated May 7, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15096A151 and ML15127A511, respectively.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
the approved Cyber Security Plan and license condition and clarify the 
demarcation point between digital components under NRC jurisdiction and 
those under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: June 
1, 2015 (80 FR 31076).

[[Page 35987]]

    Expiration dates of individual notice: July 1, 2015 (public 
comments); July 31, 2015 (hearing requests).

IV. 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.

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: July 29, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 23, 2014, January 12, and March 30, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a permanent 
exception to the River Bend Station, Unit 1 Technical Requirements 
Manual (TRM) Section 3.9.14, ``Crane Travel--Spent and New Fuel 
Storage, Transfer, and Upper Containment Fuel Pools,'' to allow for 
movement of fuel pool gates over fuel assemblies for maintenance. This 
exception will also be described by a revision to the Updated Safety 
Analysis Report (USAR) Section 9.1.2.2.2, ``Fuel Building Fuel 
Storage,'' and Section 9.1.2.3.3, ``Protection Features of Spent Fuel 
Storage Facilities.''
    Date of issuance: June 2, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15117A575; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
TRM and the USAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 
FR 74181). The supplements dated September 23, 2014, January 12, and 
March 30, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: January 9, 2015, as supplemented 
by letter dated May 6, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the operating 
license to extend the completion date for full implementation of Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant Cyber Security Plan from the beginning of July 2015 
to the end of December 2017.
    Date of issuance: June 10, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 167. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15133A502; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: The amendment revised the 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 7, 2015 (80 FR 
18658). The supplemental letter dated May 6, 2015, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida.

    Date of application for amendment: June 9, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 3, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments clarify the 
requirement for the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) in TS 6.2.2.e to 
allow the STA position be filled for each unit by a dedicated STA, an 
STA qualified Shift Supervisor, or an STA qualified Senior Reactor 
Operator. Additionally, the dedicated STA or the STA qualified Shift 
Supervisor can fill the STA position on both units.
    Date of issuance: June 1, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 221 and 171. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14350A008; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments 
revised the license and technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58818). The supplement dated April 3, 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 June 1, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 19, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
completion

[[Page 35988]]

date for Milestone 8, full implementation, of the Cyber Security Plan 
from December 31, 2015, to December 17, 2017.
    Date of Issuance: June 5, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 222 and 172. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15121A182; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2014 (79 FR 
65431).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment requests: June 28, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 19, 2012; March 18, April 16, and May 15, 2013; 
January 7, April 4, June 6, July 18, September 12, November 5, and 
December 2, 2014; and February 18, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments transition the 
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 fire protection 
program to a new risk-informed, performance-based alternative in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates by reference the 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805 (NFPA 805), 
``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water 
Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001 Edition. Copies of NFPA 805 
may be purchased from the NFPA Customer Service Department, 1 
Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269-9101 and 
in PDF format through the NFPA Online Catalog (https://www.nfpa.org) or 
by calling 1-800-344-3555 or 617-770-3000. Copies are also available 
for inspection at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, and at the NRC PDR, One 
White Flint North, Room O1-F15, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852-2738.
    Date of issuance: May 28, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
as described in the transition license conditions.
    Amendment Nos.: 262 and 257. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15061A237; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2014 (79 FR 
6648). The supplemental letters dated January 7, April 4, June 6, July 
18, September 12, November 5, and December 2, 2014; and February 18, 
2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original 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 28, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted CNS Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.3, ``Post Accident Sampling,'' thereby 
eliminating the program requirements to have and maintain the post-
accident sampling system. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved 
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-413, ``Elimination of Requirements 
for a Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).'' The availability of this 
TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on March 20, 2002 
(67 FR 13027), as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process. CNS will continue to have the ability to obtain samples, 
utilizing PASS, following an accident.
    Date of issuance: May 29, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 250. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15135A005; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58819).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 31, 2014, March 12, 2014, April 29, 2014, May 9, 
2014 (two letters), and November 11, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to reflect the use of fuel and safety analysis 
methods appropriate for the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel bundle design. 
Specifically, the changes affect TS 2.1, ``Safety Limits,'' to revise 
the reactor steam dome pressure safety limit value; TS 4.2.1, ``Fuel 
Assemblies,'' to more accurately reflect the fuel assembly design 
feature as a ``water channel'' as opposed to a ``water rod;'' and TS 
5.6.3, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add AREVA safety 
analysis methods to the references list used in determining core 
operating limits in the COLR.
    Date of issuance: June 5, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 188. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Package Accession No. ML15072A143; documents related to this amendment 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: This amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2014 (79 
FR 53460). The supplemental letter dated November 11, 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 June 5, 2015.

[[Page 35989]]

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 11, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 24, 2014, November 6, 2014, November 25, 2014, 
December 10, 2014, January 5, 2015, January 13, 2015, March 9, 2015, 
March 13, 2015, March 18, 2015, March 31, 2015, April 24, 2015, and May 
1, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: By Order dated April 10, 2015, as 
published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21767), the 
NRC approved an indirect license transfer for Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses NPF-14 and NPF-22 for the Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station, Units 1 and 2. This amendment reflects the indirect transfer 
of the licenses to Talen Energy Corporation and the name change of the 
licensee from PPL Susquehanna, LLC to Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC.
    Date of issuance: June 1, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days
    Amendment Nos.: 262 for Unit 1 and 243 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version of the Amendment and the Order are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15054A066 and ML15054A058, respectively; documents 
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the Order dated April 10, 2015. Subsequent to the 
issuance of the Order, the licensee submitted letters dated April 24, 
2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15127A263), and May 1, 2015 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML15133A335). These letters provided additional 
notifications of regulatory approvals and the closing transaction date, 
as was required by the Order.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 6, 2014 (79 FR 
60192). The supplemental letters dated October 24, 2014, November 6, 
2014, November 25, 2014, December 10, 2014, January 5, 2015, January 
13, 2015, March 9, 2015, March 13, 2015, March 18, 2015, March 31, 
2015, April 24, 2015, and May 1, 2015, contained clarifying 
information, did not expand the application beyond the scope of the 
notice as originally published in the Federal Register, and did not 
affect the applicability of the generic no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 10, 2015.
    Comments received: Yes. The comments received on the License 
Transfer Request are addressed in the Safety Evaluation dated April 10, 
2015.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 
50-362, and 72-041 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 
1, 2, and 3, and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San 
Diego County, California

    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 21, 2014, and April 29, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the SONGS 
emergency action level scheme to reflect the low likelihood of any 
credible accident at the facility in its permanently shutdown and 
defueled condition that could result in radiological releases requiring 
offsite protective measures.
    Date of issuance: June 5, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--166; Unit 2--228; Unit 3--221. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15105A349; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-13, NPF-10, and NPF-15: The 
amendments revised the emergency action levels.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 23, 2014 (79 
FR 77048). The supplemental letter dated April 29, 2015, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke 
County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket 
Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units 
1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama

    Date of application for amendment: September 17, 2014, as 
supplemented by letter dated February 13, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.1.3.2 and TS 
5.6.5 related to the moderator temperature coefficient.
    Date of issuance: June 2, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Farley Unit 1--198, Farley Unit 2--194, VEGP Unit 
1--174, VEGP Unit 2--156. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML15083A098, documents related to these amendments 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-68, NPF-81: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 2, 2014 (79 FR 
71455). The supplemental letter dated February 13, 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 June 2, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: July 24, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the reactor 
coolant pump flywheel inspection surveillance requirements to extend 
the allowable inspection interval to 20 years. The NRC staff issued a 
notice of availability of a model safety evaluation and model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing 
in license amendment applications in the

[[Page 35990]]

Federal Register on October 22, 2003 (68 FR 60422). The licensee 
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its 
application dated July 24, 2014.
    Date of issuance: May 28, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 99. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15092A761; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58827).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2015.
    NSHC determination comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th 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. 2015-15275 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P