Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 43123-43134 [2015-17651]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices 1. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 171, ‘‘Duplication Request.’’ 2. OMB approval number: 3150–0066. 3. Type of submission: Extension. 4. The form number, if applicable: NRC Form 171. 5. How often the collection is required or requested: As needed (determined by the public ordering documents.) 6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Individuals, companies, or organizations requesting document duplication. 7. The estimated number of annual responses: 108. 8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 108. 9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 9. 10. Abstract: This form is utilized by the Public Document Room (PDR) staff members who collect information from the public requesting reproduction of publicly available documents in NRC Headquarters’ Public Document Room. Copies of the form are utilized by the reproduction contractor to accompany the orders. One copy of the form is kept by the contractor for their records, one copy is sent to the public requesting the documents, and the third copy (with no credit card data) is kept by the PDR staff for 90 calendar days, and then securely discarded. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES III. Specific Requests for Comments The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. 2015–17765 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 43123 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2015–0171] [Docket No. 40–8943; ASLBP No. 08–867– 02–OLA–BD01] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Before Administrative Judges: Michael M. Gibson, Chair; Dr. Richard E. Wardwell; Brian K. Hajek; Alan S. Rosenthal (Special Assistant to the Board); In the Matter of Crow Butte Resources, INC.; (License Renewal for the In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska); Notice (Regarding Weapons at Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Proceeding) July 14, 2015. Notice is hereby given that the rules and policies regarding the possession of weapons in United States Courthouses and United States Federal Buildings in the State of Nebraska shall apply to all proceedings conducted in Nebraska by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This includes the evidentiary hearing in the above captioned proceeding scheduled to begin on Monday, August 24, 2015, at the Crawford Community Building in Crawford, Nebraska.1 Prohibited items, including weapons, will not be permitted. Accordingly, no person other than federal law enforcement personnel or law enforcement personnel from the Dawes County Sheriff’s Department, or any other authorized Nebraska state or local law enforcement organization, while performing official duties, shall wear or otherwise carry a firearm, edged weapon, impact weapon, electronic control device, chemical weapon, ammunition, or other dangerous weapon. This notice does not apply to state or local law enforcement officers responding to a call for assistance from within the Crawford Community Building. It is so ordered. For The Atomic Safety And Licensing Board. Dated: July 14, 2015 in Rockville, Maryland. Michael M. Gibson, Chair, Administrative Judge. [FR Doc. 2015–17848 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 1 Licensing Board Notice of Hearing (Notice of Evidentiary Hearing and Opportunity to Provide Written Limited Appearance Statements) (July 13, 2015) (unpublished). PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. AGENCY: 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 June 25, 2015, to July 8, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on July 7, 2015. DATES: Comments must be filed by August 20, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 21, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2015–0171. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 43124 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments 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 Section 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 60day 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. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– 0171 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this action by any of the following methods: • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2015–0171. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://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. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– 0171, 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 http:// 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 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) PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 EFiling 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 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@nr.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 NRCissued 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 http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ which is available on the agency’s public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 Webbased submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43125 at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 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, MD 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 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 43126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 http:// 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 No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: March 2, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15069A226. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 6.19, ‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ for MPS2. Specifically, DNC proposes to: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 (1) Revise the definition of Pa [peak calculated primary containment internal pressure] in TS 6.19 that was introduced into the TSs in License Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the acceptance criteria for leakage rate testing of containment air lock door seals to substitute the use of the makeup flow method in lieu of the pressure decay method currently used at MPS2. 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 proposed license amendment would revise the definition of Pa that was introduced into TS 6.19 under License Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3. The design basis accident remains unchanged for the postulated events described in the MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Since the initial conditions and assumptions included in the safety analyses are unchanged, the consequences of the postulated events remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment [would] also revise the method of surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock door seals. The makeup flow method will continue to provide assurance that the containment leakage rate is within the limits assumed in the radiological consequences analysis of the design basis accident, therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 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 would: (1) Revise the definition of Pa in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the Pa value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock door seals. The proposed amendment does not change the way the plant is operated and does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment associated with the proposed amendment. Similarly, the proposed amendment would not physically change any plant systems, PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 structures, or components involved in the mitigation of any postulated accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new failure mode associated with any equipment or personnel failures. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Criterion 3 [Does the] proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment would: (1) Revise the definition of Pa in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the Pa value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock door seals. The proposed amendment does not represent any physical change to plant systems, structures, or components, or to procedures established for plant operation. The proposed amendment does not affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses and current design limits will continue to be met. Since the proposed amendment does not affect the assumptions or consequences of any accident previously analyzed, there is no 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. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–336 and 50–423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: January 15, 2015, as supplemented on April 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15021A128 and ML15111A449, respectively. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise or add Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and to provide allowances which permit performance of the verification to the Technical Specifications. The changes are being made to address the concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008–01, E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems.’’ The proposed amendments would be consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler-523, Revision 2, Generic Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation.’’ Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: Criterion 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 or adds Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, and the Containment Spray 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. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, SDC and the Containment Spray Systems are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 Criterion 3 Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, SDC and the Containment Spray Systems are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and 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. 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 Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR–3), Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15134A160. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Technical Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and 5.6.2.3 by changing the title of the position with overall responsibility for the safe handling and storage of nuclear fuel and licensee initiated changes to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) from either the Plant Manager or the Decommissioning Director to the General Manager Decommissioning. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which is presented below: Criterion 1 Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43127 consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative Controls sections of the CR– 3 Improved Technical Specifications has no effect on the performance of these defined responsibilities. The overall responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at the same level or higher: (1) Delegating in writing the succession to this responsibility during any absence; (2) approving, prior to implementation, any change to tests, experiments or modifications to systems or equipment that affect stored nuclear fuel; (3) ensuring the acceptable performance of the staff involved in operating, maintaining, and providing technical support to ensure the safe handling and storage of the nuclear fuel; (4) ensuring that the training and retraining of the Certified Fuel Handler positions are in accordance with the applicable standards; and (5) ensuring that any licensee initiated changes to the ODCM are effective only after acceptance by the General Manager Decommissioning. The proposed CR–3 ITS [Improved Technical Specifications] Administrative Controls sections consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning are administrative in nature, and have no direct effect on any plant system, the operation and maintenance of CR–3 or any previously evaluated accident. These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with CR–3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently defueled safe storage condition. 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 proposed CR–3 ITS Administrative Controls sections consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning are administrative in nature, and have no direct effect on any plant system, the operation and maintenance of CR–3 or any previously evaluated accident. The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative Controls sections of the CR– 3 ITS have no effect on the performance of these previously delineated responsibilities. The overall responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at the same level or higher. These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with CR–3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently defueled safe storage condition. Criterion 3 Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed CR–3 ITS Administrative Controls sections consolidation of Plant E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 43128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning are administrative in nature, have no direct effect on any plant system, does not involve any physical plant limits or parameters, License Condition, Technical Specification Limiting Condition of Operability, or operating philosophy, and therefore cannot affect any margin of safety. The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative Controls sections of the CR– 3 ITS have no effect on the performance of these previously delineated responsibilities. The overall responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at the same level or higher. These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with CR–3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently defueled safe storage condition. Therefore, a no significant hazards consideration conclusion is reached. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina Date of amendment request: April 30, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15126A117. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the emergency plan by changing the emergency action levels from a scheme based upon Revision 5 of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)–99–01, ‘‘Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,’’ to one based upon Revision 6 of NEI 99–01, ‘‘Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.’’ The NRC formally endorsed NEI 99–01, Revision 6, in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463). 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? VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 These changes affect the HNP [Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant] Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not reduce the effectiveness of the HNP Emergency Plan or the HNP Emergency Response Organization. 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? These changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. These changes 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 operations are conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident initiator 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 a margin of safety? These changes affect the HNP 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, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A469. Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to the Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System (VES) configuration and equipment safety designation. Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The design functions of the VES for the main control room (MCR) are to provide breathable air, maintain positive pressurization relative to the outside, provide cooling of MCR equipment and facilities, and provide passive air filtration within the MCR boundary. The VES is designed to satisfy these functions for up to 72 hours following a design basis accident. The proposed changes to the ASME Code [American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] safety classification of components, equipment orientation and configuration, addition and deletion of components, and correction to the number of emergency air storage tanks would not adversely affect any design function. The proposed changes maintain the design function of the VES with safety-related equipment and system configuration consistent with the descriptions in UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] Figure 6.4.2. The proposed changes do not affect the support or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes 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 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to revise the VES design related to the ASME Code safety classification, equipment orientation and configuration, addition and deletion of components, and correction to the number of emergency air storage tanks maintain consistency with the design function information in the USFAR. The proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive release. The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident mitigating function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the VES to maintain the safetyrelated functions to the MCR. The VES continues to meet the requirements for which it was designed and continues to meet the regulations. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203–2015. NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: April 9, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML5099A568. Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to the Class 1E direct current and Uninterruptible Power Supply System, replacing four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare Battery Termination Box. Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The [Uninterruptible Power Supply System] IDS design change involves replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable routing changes. The proposed changes maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24 Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS divisions. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the ability of the IDS equipment to perform its design functions. The design of the IDS equipment continues to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, electrical codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. In addition, the proposed changes do not have an adverse effect on any safetyrelated SSC or function used to mitigate an accident; therefore, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not change the design functions of IDS or any of the systems or equipment in the plant. The IDS design change involves replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable routing changes, and the electrical equipment continues to perform its design functions because the same electrical codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR continue to be met. The proposed changes maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24 Hour Battery Switchboards or PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43129 one of the two 72 Hour Battery Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS divisions. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any IDS or SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or non-safety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding failures. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes do not result in changes to the IDS design requirements or design functions. The proposed changes maintain existing safety margin through continued application of the existing requirements of the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These proposed changes do not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by these proposed changes, no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203–2015. Acting NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan. 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 19, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15139A578. Description of amendment request: The licensee submitted a license amendment request (LAR) proposing to revise the minimum indicated nitrogen cover pressure required per Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.3 from the current requirement of 626 pounds per E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 43130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES square inch gauge (psig) back to the previous requirement of 617 psig. The values for the nitrogen cover pressure specified in SR 3.5.1.3 are indicated values as read on the main control board (MCB) indication. As noted in the LAR, the minimum nitrogen cover pressure was previously revised from 617 psig to 626 psig. That revision was requested as an interim measure to compensate for an increase in the uncertainty associated with the accumulator nitrogen cover pressure indication instrumentation, from the transmitter to the MCB indication. That uncertainty was attributed to a specific production batch of Veritrak/Tobar transmitters which shown to exhibit a temperature compensation shift effect of 1.58 percent. Of the 16 pressure transmitters installed in VEGP, 15 were Veritrak/ Tobar transmitters. A conservative decision was made to increase the TS minimum indicated value. Subsequent to the issuance of that amendment, the higher uncertainty transmitters were replaced with a different model. As a result of the transmitter replacement, the uncertainty of the affected instrumentation was restored to the value assumed in the Westinghouse accident analysis. Therefore, a decrease of the indicated minimum nitrogen pressure value specified in the TS is requested. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment revises the minimum nitrogen cover pressure specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to 617 psig. The accumulators are not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The accumulators are used to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change does not affect the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded that 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 minimum nitrogen cover pressure specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 617 psig. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change to the requirements of the TS assures that the acceptance limits of the accumulators with respect to assumptions in the LOCA [loss-of-coolant-accident] analyses continue to be met. The proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety. Therefore, it is concluded that 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 revises the minimum nitrogen cover pressure specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to 617 psig. The proposed change to the indicated accumulator nitrogen cover pressure provides assurance that the requirements of the TS continue to bound the acceptance limits of the accumulators with respect to the assumptions in the LOCA analyses. Thus the proposed change to the accumulator minimum nitrogen cover pressure assures the existing margin of safety is maintained. 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: 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, Matagorda County, Texas Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A260. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the South Texas Project Electric Generation Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 15.6–17 to correct errors introduced in UFSAR Revisions 16 and 17. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 consideration, which is presented below: 1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change of correcting UFSAR Table 15.6–17 does not involve physical modifications to plant equipment and does not change the operational methods or procedures. The proposed change does not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could contribute to the initiation of any accidents. Since [design basis accident (DBA)] initiators are not being altered by adoption of the proposed change, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The safety margins and analytical conservatisms associated with the [Alternate Source Term (AST)] methodology have been evaluated and were found acceptable. The results of the revised DBA analyses, performed in support of the AST methodology change, are subject to specific acceptance criteria as specified in [Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ July 2000; ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792]. The dose consequences resulting from these DBAs remain within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The proposed change of correcting UFSAR Table 15.6–17 does not change the analytical results of the previously approved AST methodology change. Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not require any physical changes to any structures, systems or components involved in the mitigation of any accidents. No new initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created. No new equipment or personnel failure modes that might initiate a new type of accident are created as a result of the proposed change. Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The safety margins and analytical conservatisms associated with the AST methodology were evaluated and found acceptable. The results of the revised DBA analyses, performed in support of the proposed change, are subject to specific acceptance criteria as specified in RG 1.183. The dose consequences resulting from these DBAs remain within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The proposed change E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices continues to ensure that the dose results at the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and low population zone boundary (LPZ), as well as the Control Room and TSC [Technical Support Center], are within the specified regulatory limits. Based on the above discussion, 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 M. Markley. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50–339, North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Date of amendment request: May 22, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15147A029. Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment would revise Technical Specification 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’ to delete Note 1 to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8 to remove the limitation that excludes Unit 2 from the verification test requirement. 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 previously evaluated accident that could be affected is a complete loss of offsite power (LOOP). Analyses have been performed to confirm that power distribution system voltages and currents with both of the new Unit 2 alternate normal to emergency bus ties in service are adequate during a Unit trip scenario. The conditions under which the Unit 2 manual transfer capability is verified are the same as Unit 1. The verification test may only be performed under conditions that will not challenge steady state operation or challenge the safety of the Unit. Therefore, the Unit 2 verification test (manual transfer between Unit 2 normal offsite circuit and alternate required offsite circuit) will not significantly increase the probability of a LOOP. Once a LOOP has occurred, the consequences are unaffected by availability VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 of offsite power (normal offsite circuit and alternate required offsite circuit). Therefore, the Unit 2 verification test (normal offsite circuit and alternate required offsite circuit) will not affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase 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 purpose of the surveillance test is to verify the capability to manually transfer AC [alternating current] power sources from the normal offsite circuit to the alternate required offsite circuit. The only effect of the change is to permit the new Unit 2 required offsite circuits to be tested in the same manner and frequency as the corresponding Unit 1 circuits. Since the Unit 2 circuits are similar to the Unit 1 circuits, and the Unit 1 test is a required TS Surveillance to demonstrate operability of the alternate offsite circuits, permitting the Unit 2 circuits to undergo the same Surveillance test will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change enables SR testing of the new Unit 2 alternate offsite AC circuits to verify the capability to manually transfer AC power sources from the normal offsite circuit to the alternate required offsite circuit. The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers, nor does it involve any adverse impact on the Class 1E circuits or SSCs [systems, structures, and components] supplied by Class 1E power. Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 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. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43131 III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission’s related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ section of this document. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: March 14, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Inservice Testing Program to reflect the current edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code that is referenced in 10 CFR 50.55a(b). Date of Issuance: July 7, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 43132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices within 120 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 393, 395, and 394. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15174A267; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 17086). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 7, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Date of amendment request: June 19, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated October 23, 2014; November 13, 2014; January 30, 2015; May 13, 2015; and June 30, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies Technical Specifications Table 3.3–4, ‘‘Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation,’’ revising the Functional Unit 9.a, ‘‘Loss-of-Offsite Power 6.9 kV Emergency Bus Undervoltage—Primary,’’ instrumentation trip setpoint and associated allowable value, and adding two notes regarding channel setpoint surveillance. Date of issuance: June 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 146. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15163A056; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF– 63 The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR 52061). The supplemental letters dated October 23, 2014; November 13, 2014; January 30, 2015; May 13, 2015; and June 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 staff’s original proposed no significant hazards VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated March 23, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and added Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements to address the concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,’’ dated January 11, 2008. The TS changes are based on TS Task Force Traveler-523, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas Accumulation,’’ dated February 21, 2013. Date of issuance: June 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented by May 31, 2016. Amendments Nos.: 297 and 300. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15154A614; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR 52063). The supplemental letter dated March 23, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated November 10, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the Technical PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Specifications (TSs) on licensed operator training and qualification education and experience eligibility requirements. Date of issuance: July 8, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 218 and 148. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15167A315; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–63 and NPF–69: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70215). The supplemental letter dated November 10, 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 July 8, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated May 7, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the TMI–1 Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendment modified TMI–1 TSs to address NRC Generic Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,’’ as described in Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 523, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas Accumulation.’’ Date of issuance: June 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 285. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15121A589; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–50. The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR 52063). The supplemental letter dated May 7, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated June 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request: August 16, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated August 13, 2014, and February 13 and March 24, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the design basis method in the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for controlling the raw water intake cell level during periods of elevated river levels. Date of issuance: June 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 282. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15111A399; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–40: The amendment revised the license and the design basis as described in the UFSAR. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15149). The supplemental letters dated August 13, 2014, and February 13 and March 24, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated June 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request: March 27, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated February 19 and April 29, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised various technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements associated with the DCPP emergency diesel generators (DGs). The changes reflect the results of a revised load study analysis, as well as a revision to the DG 30-minute load rating. These changes were submitted to address multiple issues identified by NRC and licensee investigations, and are intended to correct various nonconservative TS values associated with DG testing. Date of issuance: July 1, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 240 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 218 and 220. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15162A882; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 80 and DPR–82: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49109). The supplemental letters dated February 19 and 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 staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments and public comment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: January 30, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 20, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the Combined Licenses by revising Tier 2 * information contained within the Human Factors Engineering Design Verification, Task Support Verification, PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43133 and Integrated System Validation plans. These documents are incorporated by reference in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Date of issuance: June 11, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 35. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15141A449; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF– 91 and NPF–92: The amendments revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13902). The supplemental letter dated March 20, 2015, provided additional information that did not expand the scope of the amendment request and did not change the NRC 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 11, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. 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: June 3, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated February 4, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) Figures 3.1–1 and 3.1–2, ‘‘Surry Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System Heatup Limitations,’’ and ‘‘Surry Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System Cooldown Limitations,’’ respectively, for clarification and to be fully representative of the allowable operating conditions during Reactor Coolant System (RCS) startup and cooldown evolutions. The revisions to TS Figures 3.1–1 and 3.1–2 include: (1) The extension of the temperature axes to reflect temperatures up to RCS full power operation; (2) the extension of the pressure axes to less than 0 pounds per square inch gage to bound RCS conditions when vacuum-assist fill of the RCS loops is performed; and (3) the addition of information regarding the reactor boltup temperature. Date of issuance: June 26, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 285 and 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15173A102. E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 43134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR 58812). The supplemental letter dated February 4, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of July, 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A. Louise Lund, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2015–17651 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. R2013–10R; Order No. 2586] Rate Adjustment Product Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice. AGENCY: ACTION: The Commission is noticing a recent court of appeals remand of its decision concerning implementation of the Full Service IMb requirements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: August 3, 2015. Reply comments are due: August 14, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission’s Filing Online system at http:// www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 12, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in United States Postal Service v. Postal Regulatory Commission, 785 F.3d 740 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The court denied in part and granted in part a Postal Service petition for review of the Commission’s November 21, 2013 order denying implementation of the Full Service IMb requirements for failure to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3622(d).1 785 F.3d at 744. On July 8, 2015, the court issued its mandate remanding the case to the Commission. This order establishes procedures on remand and solicits comments on the standard to be applied when considering whether mail preparation changes are changes in rates with respect to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d). Background. On September 26, 2013, the Postal Service filed notice of its planned priced adjustment for market dominant products.2 The Postal Service’s Notice and proposed rate increases failed to account for the planned implementation of the Full Service IMb requirements. Previously, on April 18, 2013, the Postal Service revised its Domestic Mail Manual to modify the eligibility requirements for mailers to qualify for automation FirstClass, Standard, Periodicals, and Package Services rates. 78 FR 23137 (April 18, 2013). Full Service IMb was now required to qualify for automation rates, where previously mailers could qualify for automation rates by using either Full Service IMb or Basic IMb. This change in the mail preparation requirement for automation rates was scheduled to take place on January 26, 2014. Id. However, in its Notice, the Postal Service failed to adjust its billing determinants to account for the effects on the price cap calculation of the Full Service IMb requirements. After considering the Postal Service’s responses to information requests and comments from interested parties, the Commission issued Order No. 1890, finding that the Full Service IMb requirements ‘‘constitute a classification change with rate implications pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(A) and 39 CFR 3010.23(d).’’ Order No. 1890 at 2. Accordingly, as the Postal Service failed to account for the deletion and redefinition of rate cells as a result of the Full Service IMb requirement when adjusting its billing determinants for First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals, the Commission found that the proposed rate adjustments exceeded the price cap.3 As a result, the Commission 1 Order on Price Adjustments for Market Dominant Products and Related Mail Classification Changes, November 21, 2013 (Order No. 1890). 2 United States Postal Service Notice of MarketDominant Price Adjustment, September 26, 2013 (Notice). 3 Id. at 5. The Postal Service made adjustments to the billing determinants to account for the effects PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 gave the Postal Service the option either to defer implementation of the Full Service IMb requirements or to submit an amended notice of rate adjustment that included billing determinants adjusted to account for the effects of the new requirements. Id. at 36. The Postal Service chose to defer implementation of the Full Service IMb requirements and filed an appeal with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.4 The court’s opinion. On appeal the court affirmed the Commission’s authority to determine when mail preparation changes affect the application of the price cap. Specifically, the court found that [t]he Commission’s interpretation of the statute prevents the Postal Service from evading the price cap by shifting mailpieces to higher rates through manipulation of its mail preparation requirements. The Commission’s interpretation is therefore consistent with the price cap’s language and purpose, and the Commission’s delegated authority to administer the cap. 785 F.3d at 751. The court nevertheless concluded that the Commission’s exercise of its authority was arbitrary and capricious for failing to ‘‘articulate a comprehensible standard for the circumstances in which a change to mail preparation requirements such as the one in this case will be considered a ‘change in rates.’ ’’ Id. at 753. In the court’s view, the Commission failed to properly explain the standard it was applying to determine when a mail preparation change constituted a price change. Id. at 754. Thus, it granted the Postal Service’s petition in part and remanded the case to the Commission to ‘‘enunciate an intelligible standard and then reconsider its decision in light of that standard.’’ Id. at 756. Request for comment. As directed by the court, the Commission will proceed to enunciate the standard applied to determine when mail preparation changes have rate effects with price cap implications, based on its expertise and past decisions considering similar changes. The Commission requests comments to afford all interested persons an opportunity to provide input on the standard used by the Commission. In conducting its analysis of whether a mail preparation change constitutes a rate change, the Commission will evaluate the following four factors: (1) Whether the change alters a basic characteristic of a mailing, (2) the effect of the Full Service IMb requirements on the price cap calculation for Package Services. 4 Response of the United States Postal Service to Order No. 1890, November 29, 2013. E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43123-43134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17651]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0171]


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 June 25, 2015, to July 8, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 7, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 20, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 21, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0171. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear

[[Page 43124]]

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0171 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0171.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://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-2015-0171, 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 http://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 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 Section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://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

[[Page 43125]]

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@nr.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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 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, MD 
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

[[Page 43126]]

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 
http://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 No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: March 2, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15069A226.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 6.19, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' for MPS2. Specifically, DNC proposes to: (1) Revise the 
definition of Pa [peak calculated primary containment 
internal pressure] in TS 6.19 that was introduced into the TSs in 
License Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa value in 
TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the acceptance criteria for 
leakage rate testing of containment air lock door seals to substitute 
the use of the makeup flow method in lieu of the pressure decay method 
currently used at MPS2.
    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 proposed license amendment would revise the definition of 
Pa that was introduced into TS 6.19 under License 
Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa value in TSs 
3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3. The design basis accident remains unchanged for 
the postulated events described in the MPS2 Final Safety Analysis 
Report (FSAR). Since the initial conditions and assumptions included 
in the safety analyses are unchanged, the consequences of the 
postulated events remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment [would] also revise the method of 
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock 
door seals. The makeup flow method will continue to provide 
assurance that the containment leakage rate is within the limits 
assumed in the radiological consequences analysis of the design 
basis accident, therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

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 would: (1) Revise the definition of 
Pa in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the Pa 
value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of 
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock 
door seals. The proposed amendment does not change the way the plant 
is operated and does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. 
No new or different types of equipment will be installed and there 
are no physical modifications to existing equipment associated with 
the proposed amendment. Similarly, the proposed amendment would not 
physically change any plant systems, structures, or components 
involved in the mitigation of any postulated accidents. Thus, no new 
initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are 
created.
    Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new failure mode associated with any equipment or 
personnel failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment would not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 3

    [Does the] proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would: (1) Revise the definition of 
Pa in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the Pa 
value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of 
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock 
door seals. The proposed amendment does not represent any physical 
change to plant systems, structures, or components, or to procedures 
established for plant operation. The proposed amendment does not 
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses 
and current design limits will continue to be met. Since the 
proposed amendment does not affect the assumptions or consequences 
of any accident previously analyzed, there is no 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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423, 
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County, 
Connecticut
    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2015, as supplemented on 
April 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15021A128 and ML15111A449, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise or add Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system 
locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with 
water and to provide allowances which permit performance of the 
verification to the Technical Specifications. The changes are being 
made to address the concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01,

[[Page 43127]]

``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat 
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems.'' The proposed amendments would 
be consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler-523, 
Revision 2, Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 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 or adds Surveillance Requirements 
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS), Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, and the Containment 
Spray 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.

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 change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, SDC and the Containment Spray Systems 
are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and 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.

Criterion 3

    Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require 
verification that the ECCS, SDC and the Containment Spray Systems 
are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and 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.

    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 Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal 
River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15134A160.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and 5.6.2.3 by changing 
the title of the position with overall responsibility for the safe 
handling and storage of nuclear fuel and licensee initiated changes to 
the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) from either the Plant 
Manager or the Decommissioning Director to the General Manager 
Decommissioning.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which 
is presented below:

Criterion 1

    Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director 
to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative 
Controls sections of the CR-3 Improved Technical Specifications has 
no effect on the performance of these defined responsibilities. The 
overall responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections 
remains at the same level or higher: (1) Delegating in writing the 
succession to this responsibility during any absence; (2) approving, 
prior to implementation, any change to tests, experiments or 
modifications to systems or equipment that affect stored nuclear 
fuel; (3) ensuring the acceptable performance of the staff involved 
in operating, maintaining, and providing technical support to ensure 
the safe handling and storage of the nuclear fuel; (4) ensuring that 
the training and retraining of the Certified Fuel Handler positions 
are in accordance with the applicable standards; and (5) ensuring 
that any licensee initiated changes to the ODCM are effective only 
after acceptance by the General Manager Decommissioning.
    The proposed CR-3 ITS [Improved Technical Specifications] 
Administrative Controls sections consolidation of Plant Manager and 
Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning are 
administrative in nature, and have no direct effect on any plant 
system, the operation and maintenance of CR-3 or any previously 
evaluated accident.
    These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with 
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently 
defueled safe storage condition.

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 proposed CR-3 ITS Administrative Controls sections 
consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to 
General Manager Decommissioning are administrative in nature, and 
have no direct effect on any plant system, the operation and 
maintenance of CR-3 or any previously evaluated accident. The 
consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to 
General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative 
Controls sections of the CR-3 ITS have no effect on the performance 
of these previously delineated responsibilities. The overall 
responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at 
the same level or higher.
    These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with 
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently 
defueled safe storage condition.

Criterion 3

    Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed CR-3 ITS Administrative Controls sections 
consolidation of Plant

[[Page 43128]]

Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager 
Decommissioning are administrative in nature, have no direct effect 
on any plant system, does not involve any physical plant limits or 
parameters, License Condition, Technical Specification Limiting 
Condition of Operability, or operating philosophy, and therefore 
cannot affect any margin of safety.
    The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director 
to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative 
Controls sections of the CR-3 ITS have no effect on the performance 
of these previously delineated responsibilities. The overall 
responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at 
the same level or higher.
    These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with 
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently 
defueled safe storage condition.

    Therefore, a no significant hazards consideration conclusion is 
reached.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, 
Charlotte NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15126A117.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
emergency plan by changing the emergency action levels from a scheme 
based upon Revision 5 of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)-99-01, 
``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' to one 
based upon Revision 6 of NEI 99-01, ``Development of Emergency Action 
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.'' The NRC formally endorsed NEI 99-01, 
Revision 6, in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12346A463).
    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?
    These changes affect the HNP [Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant] Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of 
the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed 
changes do not reduce the effectiveness of the HNP Emergency Plan or 
the HNP Emergency Response Organization. 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?
    These changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan and do not alter any 
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical 
Specifications. These changes 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 
operations are conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the 
proposed changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident 
initiator 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 a margin of safety?
    These changes affect the HNP 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, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia
    Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A469.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System (VES) 
configuration and equipment safety designation. Because this proposed 
change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse 
Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also 
requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 
in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The design functions of the VES for the main control room (MCR) 
are to provide breathable air, maintain positive pressurization 
relative to the outside, provide cooling of MCR equipment and 
facilities, and provide passive air filtration within the MCR 
boundary. The VES is designed to satisfy these functions for up to 
72 hours following a design basis accident.
    The proposed changes to the ASME Code [American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] safety 
classification of components, equipment orientation and 
configuration, addition and deletion of components, and correction 
to the number of emergency air storage tanks would not adversely 
affect any design function. The proposed changes maintain the design 
function of the VES with safety-related equipment and system 
configuration consistent with the descriptions in UFSAR [Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report] Figure 6.4.2. The proposed changes do 
not affect the support or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. 
There is no change to the response of systems to postulated accident 
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases 
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to 
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely 
affected, nor do the proposed changes 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

[[Page 43129]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to revise the VES design related to the 
ASME Code safety classification, equipment orientation and 
configuration, addition and deletion of components, and correction 
to the number of emergency air storage tanks maintain consistency 
with the design function information in the USFAR. The proposed 
changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could 
result in a radioactive release. The proposed changes would not 
affect any safety-related accident mitigating function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the VES to 
maintain the safety-related functions to the MCR. The VES continues 
to meet the requirements for which it was designed and continues to 
meet the regulations. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, 
and no margin of safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia
    Date of amendment request: April 9, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML5099A568.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Class 1E direct current and Uninterruptible Power Supply 
System, replacing four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare 
Battery Termination Box. Because this proposed change requires a 
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 
1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an 
exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance 
with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. The [Uninterruptible Power Supply 
System] IDS design change involves replacing the four Spare 
Termination Boxes with a single Spare Battery Termination Box, and 
minor raceway and cable routing changes. The proposed changes 
maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank 
and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24 
Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery 
Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS 
divisions. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated 
in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not 
affected.
    The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the 
ability of the IDS equipment to perform its design functions. The 
design of the IDS equipment continues to meet the same regulatory 
acceptance criteria, electrical codes, and standards as required by 
the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the 
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., accidents, 
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine 
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. In addition, the 
proposed changes do not have an adverse effect on any safety-related 
SSC or function used to mitigate an accident; therefore, the 
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not change the design functions of IDS 
or any of the systems or equipment in the plant. The IDS design 
change involves replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a 
single Spare Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable 
routing changes, and the electrical equipment continues to perform 
its design functions because the same electrical codes and standards 
as stated in the UFSAR continue to be met. The proposed changes 
maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank 
and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24 
Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery 
Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS 
divisions.
    These proposed changes do not adversely affect any IDS or SSC 
design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in 
a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect 
safety-related or non-safety-related equipment. Therefore, this 
activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, 
result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a 
new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding 
failures.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The 
proposed changes do not result in changes to the IDS design 
requirements or design functions. The proposed changes maintain 
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing 
requirements of the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy 
the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and 
standards as stated in the UFSAR. These proposed changes do not 
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis 
input or result, or design/safety margin.
    Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by these proposed changes, no 
margin of safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.

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 19, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15139A578.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee submitted a license 
amendment request (LAR) proposing to revise the minimum indicated 
nitrogen cover pressure required per Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.3 from the current requirement of 
626 pounds per

[[Page 43130]]

square inch gauge (psig) back to the previous requirement of 617 psig. 
The values for the nitrogen cover pressure specified in SR 3.5.1.3 are 
indicated values as read on the main control board (MCB) indication. As 
noted in the LAR, the minimum nitrogen cover pressure was previously 
revised from 617 psig to 626 psig. That revision was requested as an 
interim measure to compensate for an increase in the uncertainty 
associated with the accumulator nitrogen cover pressure indication 
instrumentation, from the transmitter to the MCB indication. That 
uncertainty was attributed to a specific production batch of Veritrak/
Tobar transmitters which shown to exhibit a temperature compensation 
shift effect of 1.58 percent. Of the 16 pressure transmitters installed 
in VEGP, 15 were Veritrak/Tobar transmitters. A conservative decision 
was made to increase the TS minimum indicated value. Subsequent to the 
issuance of that amendment, the higher uncertainty transmitters were 
replaced with a different model. As a result of the transmitter 
replacement, the uncertainty of the affected instrumentation was 
restored to the value assumed in the Westinghouse accident analysis. 
Therefore, a decrease of the indicated minimum nitrogen pressure value 
specified in the TS is requested.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the minimum nitrogen cover 
pressure specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig 
to 617 psig. The accumulators are not a precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. The accumulators are used to mitigate the 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change 
does not affect the probability or the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 minimum nitrogen cover pressure 
specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to 617 
psig. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change to the requirements of the TS assures that the 
acceptance limits of the accumulators with respect to assumptions in 
the LOCA [loss-of-coolant-accident] analyses continue to be met. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or 
operation of any structures, systems, and components important to 
safety.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 revises the minimum nitrogen cover pressure 
specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to 617 
psig. The proposed change to the indicated accumulator nitrogen 
cover pressure provides assurance that the requirements of the TS 
continue to bound the acceptance limits of the accumulators with 
respect to the assumptions in the LOCA analyses. Thus the proposed 
change to the accumulator minimum nitrogen cover pressure assures 
the existing margin of safety is maintained.
    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: 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, Matagorda County, Texas
    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A260.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
South Texas Project Electric Generation Station Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 15.6-17 to correct errors introduced in 
UFSAR Revisions 16 and 17.
    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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change of correcting UFSAR Table 15.6-17 does not 
involve physical modifications to plant equipment and does not 
change the operational methods or procedures. The proposed change 
does not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could 
contribute to the initiation of any accidents. Since [design basis 
accident (DBA)] initiators are not being altered by adoption of the 
proposed change, the probability of an accident previously evaluated 
is not affected. The safety margins and analytical conservatisms 
associated with the [Alternate Source Term (AST)] methodology have 
been evaluated and were found acceptable. The results of the revised 
DBA analyses, performed in support of the AST methodology change, 
are subject to specific acceptance criteria as specified in 
[Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source 
Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power 
Reactors,'' July 2000; ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792]. The dose 
consequences resulting from these DBAs remain within the acceptance 
criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The proposed change 
of correcting UFSAR Table 15.6-17 does not change the analytical 
results of the previously approved AST methodology change.
    Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
require any physical changes to any structures, systems or 
components involved in the mitigation of any accidents. No new 
initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are 
created. No new equipment or personnel failure modes that might 
initiate a new type of accident are created as a result of the 
proposed change.
    Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
safety margins and analytical conservatisms associated with the AST 
methodology were evaluated and found acceptable. The results of the 
revised DBA analyses, performed in support of the proposed change, 
are subject to specific acceptance criteria as specified in RG 
1.183. The dose consequences resulting from these DBAs remain within 
the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The 
proposed change

[[Page 43131]]

continues to ensure that the dose results at the exclusion area 
boundary (EAB) and low population zone boundary (LPZ), as well as 
the Control Room and TSC [Technical Support Center], are within the 
specified regulatory limits.
    Based on the above discussion, 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 M. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-339, North Anna 
Power Station, Unit No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: May 22, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15147A029.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
would revise Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' 
to delete Note 1 to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8 to remove the 
limitation that excludes Unit 2 from the verification test requirement.
    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 previously evaluated accident that could be affected is a 
complete loss of offsite power (LOOP). Analyses have been performed 
to confirm that power distribution system voltages and currents with 
both of the new Unit 2 alternate normal to emergency bus ties in 
service are adequate during a Unit trip scenario. The conditions 
under which the Unit 2 manual transfer capability is verified are 
the same as Unit 1. The verification test may only be performed 
under conditions that will not challenge steady state operation or 
challenge the safety of the Unit. Therefore, the Unit 2 verification 
test (manual transfer between Unit 2 normal offsite circuit and 
alternate required offsite circuit) will not significantly increase 
the probability of a LOOP.
    Once a LOOP has occurred, the consequences are unaffected by 
availability of offsite power (normal offsite circuit and alternate 
required offsite circuit). Therefore, the Unit 2 verification test 
(normal offsite circuit and alternate required offsite circuit) will 
not affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not 
increase 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 purpose of the surveillance test is to verify the capability 
to manually transfer AC [alternating current] power sources from the 
normal offsite circuit to the alternate required offsite circuit. 
The only effect of the change is to permit the new Unit 2 required 
offsite circuits to be tested in the same manner and frequency as 
the corresponding Unit 1 circuits. Since the Unit 2 circuits are 
similar to the Unit 1 circuits, and the Unit 1 test is a required TS 
Surveillance to demonstrate operability of the alternate offsite 
circuits, permitting the Unit 2 circuits to undergo the same 
Surveillance test will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change enables SR testing of the new Unit 2 
alternate offsite AC circuits to verify the capability to manually 
transfer AC power sources from the normal offsite circuit to the 
alternate required offsite circuit.
    The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include 
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment 
system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers, 
nor does it involve any adverse impact on the Class 1E circuits or 
SSCs [systems, structures, and components] supplied by Class 1E 
power.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 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.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 
and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Oconee 
Nuclear Station Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Inservice 
Testing Program to reflect the current edition of the American Society 
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code that is referenced in 10 CFR 
50.55a(b).
    Date of Issuance: July 7, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

[[Page 43132]]

within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 393, 395, and 394. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15174A267; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 
17086).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 7, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 19, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 23, 2014; November 13, 2014; January 30, 2015; 
May 13, 2015; and June 30, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies Technical 
Specifications Table 3.3-4, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation 
System Instrumentation,'' revising the Functional Unit 9.a, ``Loss-of-
Offsite Power 6.9 kV Emergency Bus Undervoltage--Primary,'' 
instrumentation trip setpoint and associated allowable value, and 
adding two notes regarding channel setpoint surveillance.
    Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 146. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15163A056; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 The amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52061). The supplemental letters dated October 23, 2014; November 
13, 2014; January 30, 2015; May 13, 2015; and June 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 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 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated March 23, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and added 
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements to address the 
concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas 
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and 
Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008. The TS changes are 
based on TS Task Force Traveler-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-
01, Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013.
    Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented by 
May 31, 2016.
    Amendments Nos.: 297 and 300. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15154A614; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52063). The supplemental letter dated March 23, 2015, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 10, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) on licensed operator training and 
qualification education and experience eligibility requirements.
    Date of issuance: July 8, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 218 and 148. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15167A315; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-63 and NPF-69: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 
FR 70215). The supplemental letter dated November 10, 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 July 8, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated May 7, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the TMI-1 
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendment modified 
TMI-1 TSs to address NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas 
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and 
Containment Spray Systems,'' as described in Technical Specification 
Task Force Traveler 523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing 
Gas Accumulation.''
    Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15121A589; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.

[[Page 43133]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 
FR 52063). The supplemental letter dated May 7, 2015, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated June 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station 
(FCS), Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: August 16, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 13, 2014, and February 13 and March 24, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the design 
basis method in the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for 
controlling the raw water intake cell level during periods of elevated 
river levels.
    Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 282. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15111A399; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the license and the design basis as described in the UFSAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR 
15149). The supplemental letters dated August 13, 2014, and February 13 
and March 24, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated June 30, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo 
County, California

    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 19 and April 29, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised various 
technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements associated with 
the DCPP emergency diesel generators (DGs). The changes reflect the 
results of a revised load study analysis, as well as a revision to the 
DG 30-minute load rating. These changes were submitted to address 
multiple issues identified by NRC and licensee investigations, and are 
intended to correct various non-conservative TS values associated with 
DG testing.
    Date of issuance: July 1, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 240 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 218 and 220. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15162A882; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR 
49109). The supplemental letters dated February 19 and 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 staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments and public 
comment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 30, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 20, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the 
Combined Licenses by revising Tier 2 * information contained within the 
Human Factors Engineering Design Verification, Task Support 
Verification, and Integrated System Validation plans. These documents 
are incorporated by reference in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report.
    Date of issuance: June 11, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 35. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15141A449; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 
13902). The supplemental letter dated March 20, 2015, provided 
additional information that did not expand the scope of the amendment 
request and did not change the NRC 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 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: June 3, 2014, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 4, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2, ``Surry Units 1 and 2 
Reactor Coolant System Heatup Limitations,'' and ``Surry Units 1 and 2 
Reactor Coolant System Cooldown Limitations,'' respectively, for 
clarification and to be fully representative of the allowable operating 
conditions during Reactor Coolant System (RCS) startup and cooldown 
evolutions. The revisions to TS Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 include: (1) 
The extension of the temperature axes to reflect temperatures up to RCS 
full power operation; (2) the extension of the pressure axes to less 
than 0 pounds per square inch gage to bound RCS conditions when vacuum-
assist fill of the RCS loops is performed; and (3) the addition of 
information regarding the reactor boltup temperature.
    Date of issuance: June 26, 2015.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 285 and 285. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15173A102.

[[Page 43134]]

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 
FR 58812). The supplemental letter dated February 4, 2015, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of July, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-17651 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P