Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 58513-58525 [2015-24472]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 188 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58513-58525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24472]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0227]


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 September 1 to September 14, 2015. The last

[[Page 58514]]

biweekly notice was published on September 15, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by October 29, 2015. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by November 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0227. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0227 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0227.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0227, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request 
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing 
or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of

[[Page 58515]]

the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected 
by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The 
name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) 
the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be 
made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which 
may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's 
interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions 
which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 
proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the 
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the 
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 
10 CFR part 2.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital 
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public 
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to

[[Page 58516]]

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require 
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a 
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

    Duke Energy 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: July 28, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15216A123.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would reflect the 
transfer of ownership, held by Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., in 
CR-3 to DEF. The transfer of ownership will take place pursuant to the 
Settlement, Release and Acquisition Agreement, dated April 30, 2015, 
wherein DEF will purchase the 1.6994 percent ownership share in CR-3 
held by Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., leaving DEF as the sole 
remaining licensee for CR-3.
    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 involve a significant increase in 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated because no 
accident initiators or assumptions are affected. The proposed 
license transfer is administrative in nature and has no direct 
effect on any plant system, plant personnel qualifications, or the 
operation and maintenance of CR-3.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because no 
new accident initiators or assumptions are introduced by the 
proposed changes. The proposed license transfer is administrative in 
nature and has no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel 
qualifications, or operation and maintenance of CR-3.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety because the proposed changes do not involve changes 
to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or 
consequences, or reduce response or mitigation capabilities. The 
proposed license transfer is administrative in nature and has no 
direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel qualifications, 
or operation and maintenance of CR-3.

    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: Bruce A. Watson.

    Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy Resources, Inc.; South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association; and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.; 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi.

    Date of amendment request: May 27, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15147A599.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would allow the 
extension of the containment isolation valve leakage test (Type C 
within appendix J to 10 CFR part 50, ``Primary Reactor Containment 
Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors''). The proposed change 
would also adopt a more conservative grace interval for Type B and Type 
C tests. This amendment request also proposes an administrative change 
by deleting the information regarding the performance of the next Type 
A test no later than November 23, 2008, as this has already occurred.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 FR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is 
presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 58517]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change 
to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is 
operated or controlled. As such, the containment will continue to 
perform its design function as a barrier to fission product 
releases. In addition, the containment and the testing requirements 
invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment 
exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of 
an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of 
any precursors of an accident.
    Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    With respect to the increase in the time interval, consistent 
with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) implementing guidance, there 
is an added requirement that a licensee's post-outage report include 
the margin between the Type B and Type C leakage rate summation and 
its regulatory limit. This provides an additional leading indicator 
to allow for an increase to the surveillance interval. Further, at 
no time shall an extension be allowed for Type C valves that are 
restricted categorically (e.g., boiling-water reactor (BWR) main 
steam isolation valves (MSIVs)) and those valves with a history of 
leakage, or any valves held to either a less than maximum interval 
or to the base refueling cycle interval. Therefore, this proposed 
extension does not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed deletion of Type A test exceptions is for 
activities that have already taken place, so this deletion is solely 
an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no 
impact on how the unit is operated.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 does not involve a physical change to the 
plant or a change to the manner in which the plant is operated or 
controlled. The proposed deletion of Type A test exceptions is for 
activities that have already taken place, so this deletion is solely 
an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no 
impact on how the unit is operated.
    Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change 
to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is 
operated or controlled. As such, the containment will continue to 
perform its design function as a barrier to fission product 
releases. In addition, the containment and the testing requirements 
invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment 
exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of 
an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of 
any precursors of an accident. Consistent with the NEI implementing 
guidance, there is an added requirement that a licensee's post-
outage report include the margin between the Type B and Type C 
leakage rate summation and its regulatory limit. This provides 
additional leading indicator to allow for an increase to the 
surveillance interval. Further, at no time shall an extension be 
allowed for Type C valves that are restricted categorically (e.g., 
BWR MSIVs) and those valves with a history of leakage, or any valves 
held to either a less than maximum interval or to the base refueling 
cycle interval.
    The proposed deletion of Type A test exceptions is for 
activities that have already taken place, so this deletion is solely 
an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no 
impact on how the unit is operated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Assistant General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, LA 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station (NMP2), Unit 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: March 23, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15082A368.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise NMP2, 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove TS Table 3.6.1.3-1, 
``Secondary Containment Bypass Leakage Paths Leakage Rate Limits,'' and 
references to the table and relocate the information to the Technical 
Requirements Manual (TRM).
    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.
    Using the guidance in GL 91-08, the NMP2 proposed change would 
remove Table 3.6.1.3-1 and references to the table from the TS and 
relocates the information from the table to the TRM, which is a 
licensee controlled document. This change is consistent with 
Revision 4 of NUREG-1433, ``General Electric BWR/4 Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications'' and Revision 4 of NUREG-1434, ``General 
Electric BWR/6 Improved Standard Technical Specifications.'' This 
change is an administrative change that will not alter the manner in 
which the valves will be operated. Since the proposed change does 
not alter the manner in which the valves are operated, there is no 
significant impact on reactor operation.
    Being an administrative change, the proposed change does not 
involve a physical change to the valves, nor does it change the 
safety function of the valves. The proposed TS revision involves no 
significant changes to the operation of any systems or components in 
normal or accident operating conditions and no changes to existing 
structures, systems, or components.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The relocation of the table for the secondary containment 
isolation valves is an administrative change that will not impact 
the safety function of the secondary containment isolation valves. 
The proposed change does not affect the manner in which the valves 
will be operated; therefore, there are no new failure mechanisms 
created. The proposed change does not involve physical changes to 
the valves, nor does it change the safety function of the valves. 
The proposed change does not physically alter secondary containment 
isolation capability. The secondary containment bypass leakage paths 
leakage rate limits will not be changed by the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    There is no adverse impact on the existing equipment capability 
as well as associated structures as a result of this administrative 
change. The proposed changes continue to provide the same 
limitations for secondary containment bypass leakage paths leakage 
rate limits as the existing leakage rate limits.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this

[[Page 58518]]

review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Senior Vice President, 
Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General Counsel, Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15089A231.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request involves 
the adoption of approved changes to NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications [STS] General Electric BWR/4 Plants,'' Revision 4.0, to 
allow relocation of specific TS surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program. The proposed changes are described in Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 425 ``Relocate Surveillance 
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 
5b,'' Revision 3 (TSTF-425) ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642, and are 
described in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal 
Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The proposed changes are 
consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-425. The proposed changes relocate 
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, the 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). The changes are 
applicable to licensees using probabilistic risk guidelines contained 
in NRC-approved NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed 
Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for 
Control of Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML071360456).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the LAR changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), 
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Exelon 
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance 
contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the 
TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable 
acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase 
of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with 
Regulatory Guide 1.177.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Senior Vice President, 
Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General Counsel, Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15198A032.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would remove 
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.8.1.1.2.g 
and relocate the requirements to the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) for SL-1 and the UFSAR for SL-2. SL TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.g 
requires a 10-year sediment cleaning of the fuel oil storage tank.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change acts to remove TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.g 
requirements from the TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR. 
The fuel storage tanks provide an adequate volume of diesel 
generator fuel oil for diesel generators to operate in the event of 
a loss of coolant accident and concurrent loss of offsite power. 
Relocating TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.g requirements from the TS to the UFSAR 
will not present an adverse impact to the fuel storage tanks and 
subsequently, will not impact the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Furthermore, once relocated to the UFSAR, changes to fuel 
storage tank sediment cleaning requirements will be controlled in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. Diesel generator fuel oil quantity and 
quality are assured by other TS SRs that remain unchanged.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, and configuration or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed change does not adversely 
affect the ability of any structure, system, or component (SSC) to 
perform its intended safety function to mitigate the consequences

[[Page 58519]]

of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types and amounts 
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change acts to remove TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.g 
requirements from the TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR. 
The proposed change does not introduce new modes of plant operation 
and it does not involve physical modifications to the plant (no new 
or different type of equipment will be installed). There are no 
changes in the method by which any safety related plant SSC performs 
its specified safety function. As such, the plant conditions for 
which the design basis accident analyses were performed remain 
valid.
    No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a 
result of the proposed change. There will be no adverse effect or 
challenges imposed on any SSC as a result of the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the 
fission product barriers to perform their accident mitigation 
functions. The proposed change acts to remove TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.g 
requirements from the TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR. 
The TS SRs retained in TS will continue to ensure the proper 
functioning of diesel generators. The proposed change does not 
physically alter any SSC. There will be no effect on those SSCs 
necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. 
There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from 
nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak 
cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), or any other margin of safety. The 
applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will 
continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/
JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 6, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A177.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the VSNS, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information, including the 
Technical Requirements Manual, and involves related changes to Combined 
License (COL) Appendix C information, with corresponding changes to the 
associated plant-specific Tier 1 information. The proposed departures 
consist of changes to plant-specific Tier 1 (and COL, Appendix C) 
tables and UFSAR tables, text, and figures related to the addition of 
two hydrogen igniters above the In-Containment Refueling Water Storage 
Tank roof vents to improve hydrogen burn capabilities, incorporating 
consistency changes to a plant-specific Tier 1 table to clarify the 
minimum surface temperature of the hydrogen igniters and igniter 
location, removal of hydrogen igniters from the Protection and Safety 
Monitoring System from a plant-specific Tier 1 table, and clarification 
of hydrogen igniter controls in a Tier 1 table.
    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 addition of hydrogen igniters and clarifying 
changes to the hydrogen ignition subsystem does not affect any 
safety-related equipment or function. The hydrogen ignition 
subsystem is designed to mitigate beyond design basis hydrogen 
generation in the containment. The hydrogen ignition subsystem 
changes do not involve any accident, initiating event or component 
failure; thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously 
evaluated are not affected. The modified system will maintain its 
designed and analyzed beyond design basis function to maintain 
containment integrity. The maximum allowable leakage rate specified 
in the Technical Specifications is unchanged, and radiological 
material release source terms are not affected; thus, the 
radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed addition of hydrogen igniters and clarifying 
changes to the hydrogen ignition subsystem will maintain the beyond 
design basis function of the hydrogen ignition subsystem. The 
hydrogen igniter subsystem changes do not impact its function to 
maintain containment integrity during beyond design basis accident 
conditions, and, thus does not introduce any new failure mode. 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 amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed addition of hydrogen igniters and clarifying 
changes to the hydrogen ignition subsystem will maintain the beyond 
design basis function of the hydrogen ignition subsystem. The 
proposed changes do not have any effect on the ability of safety-
related structures, systems, or components to perform their design 
basis functions. The proposed changes do not affect the ability of 
the hydrogen igniter subsystem to maintain containment integrity 
following a beyond design basis accident. The hydrogen igniter 
subsystem continues to meets 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, thus no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.


[[Page 58520]]


South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15138A458.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes a 
change to the VSNS, Units 2 and 3, Radiation Emergency Plan (Plan). 
Changes include expansion of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) 
boundary, and revisions to the Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) analysis 
and the Alert and Notification System (ANS) design reports to encompass 
the expanded EPZ boundary.
    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, which include expansion of the EPZ 
boundary and revision of the ETE analysis and ANS design reports to 
encompass the expanded EPZ boundary, do not impact the physical 
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSC) or the 
manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed 
changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, 
nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed 
acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative 
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected 
by the proposed changes.
    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 involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed 
or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation. The 
proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could result 
in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes, which include expansion 
of the EPZ boundary and revision of the ETE analysis and ANS design 
reports to encompass the expanded EPZ boundary, are not initiators 
of any accidents. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission 
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of 
radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes, which include 
expansion of the EPZ boundary and revision of the ETE analysis and 
ANS design reports to encompass the expanded EPZ boundary, do not 
impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or 
accidents. The proposed changes do not alter requirements of the 
Technical Specifications or the Combined Licenses. The proposed 
changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation and 
no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes.
    Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria 
used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system 
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by these proposed changes. The proposed changes will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition.

    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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

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

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

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 14, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15197A106 and ML15226A346.
    Brief Description of amendment: The proposed amendment will modify 
the Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3.4, ``Control Element Assembly 
Drop Time'' [CEA] and Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 15, 
``Accident Analyses.'' The proposed amendment would change TS 3.1.3.4 
to revise the arithmetic average of all CEA drop times to be less than 
or equal to 3.5 seconds.
    Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register: 
September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53892).
    Expiration date of individual notice: October 8, 2015 (public 
comments); and November 9, 2015 (hearing requests).
    Amendment No: 205. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15229A219; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 2, 2014 (79 FR 
71453). The original Notice considered the September 25, 2013, 
application and supplemental by letters dated December 30, 2013, March 
10, April 11, 2014. The supplemental letters dated July 31, August 14, 
August 26, September 4, September 10, October 2, November 20, November 
21 (two letters), and December 15, 2014; and January 6, January 20, 
February 9, February 18, February 19, March 3, and August 13, 2015, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The 
comments

[[Page 58521]]

received on Amendment No. 205 are addressed in the Safety Evaluation 
dated August 31, 2015.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission 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 
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 Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, 
Unit 3, Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: October 29, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated May 7, 2014; June 17, 2014; and March 6, 
2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the CR-3 
Facility Operating License to remove and revise certain License 
Conditions. The amendment also extensively revised the CR-3 Improved 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to create the CR-3 Permanently Defueled 
TSs.
    Date of issuance: September 4, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of its issuance, to be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 247. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15224B286; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 
64222). The supplement dated March 6, 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 September 4, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 10, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 30, June 1, and December 16, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required Action (RA) B.3.2.2, ``One DG [Diesel 
Generator] Inoperable--Perform SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.8.1.2 
for OPERABLE DG within 96 hours,'' by a NOTE clarifying RA B.3.2.2 that 
states, ``Not required to be performed when the cause of the inoperable 
DG is pre-planned maintenance and testing.''
    Date of issuance: September 8, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 242. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15222B175; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 
FR 74179). The supplemental letter(s) dated January 30, June 1, and 
December 16, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated September 8, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of application for amendment: September 25, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 30, 2013, March 10, April 11, 
July 31, August 14, August 26, September 4, September 10, October 2, 
November 20, November 21 (two letters), and December 15, 2014; and 
January 6, January 20, February 9, February 18, February 19, March 3, 
and August 13, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the GGNS 
Technical Specifications to allow plant operation from the currently 
licensed Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) domain to 
plant operation in the expanded MELLLA Plus domain under the previously 
approved extended power uprate conditions of 4408 megawatts thermal 
rated core thermal power.
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 205. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15229A219; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 2, 2014 (79 FR 
71453). The original Notice considered the September 25, 2013, 
application and supplemental by letters dated December 30, 2013, March 
10, April 11, 2014. The supplemental letters dated July 31, August 14, 
August 26, September 4, September 10, October 2, November 20, November 
21 (two letters), and December 15, 2014; and January 6, January 20, 
February 9, February 18,

[[Page 58522]]

February 19, March 3, and August 13, 2015, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The 
comments received on Amendment No. 205 are addressed in the Safety 
Evaluation dated August 31, 2015.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of application for amendment: August 1, 2014, as supplemented 
by letters dated March 3, and June 30, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the following 
five non-conservative Technical Specification Allowable Values (AVs) in 
the GGNS Technical Specifications (TSs):
     Automatic Depressurization System Initiation Timer (TS 
Table 3.3.5.1-1)
     System A and B Containment Spray Timers (TS Table 3.3.6.3-
1)
     Division 1 and 2 Degraded 4.16 kiloVolt (KV) Bus Voltage 
(TS Table 3.3.8.1-1)
     Division 3 Degraded 4.16 KV Bus Voltage (TS Table 3.3.8.1-
1)
     Division 3 Degraded 4.16 KV Bus Voltage Time Delay-LOCA 
(loss of coolant accident) (TS Table 3.3.8.1-1)
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 207. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15195A355; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 
FR 70214). The supplemental letters dated March 3, 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 August 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, (GGNS) Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of application for amendment: January 6, 2015, as supplemented 
by letter dated March 27, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the GGNS 
Technical Specification 5.6.5.b, ``Core Operating Limits Report 
(COLR),'' by adding the reference NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8, ``GE 
[General Electric] Hitachi Boiling Water Reactor Detect and Suppress 
Solution--Confirmation Density'' as Reference 27. The amendment was 
submitted in support of the NRC's approval of the Maximum Extended Load 
Line Limit Analysis Plus amendment.
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 206. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15180A170; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR 
23604).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating, Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: February 12, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 11, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specifications 3.4.3, ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Pressure and 
Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure 
Protection (LTOP),'' to include new RCS P/T limit curves for heatup, 
cooldown, and pressure test operations and LTOP system setpoints. The 
proposed P/T limit curves and LTOP system setpoints will be valid for 
37 effective full power years of facility operation, which is the 
accumulated burnup estimated to occur in December 2023 during the 
period of extended plant operation.
    Date of issuance: September 3, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 258. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15226A159; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR 
32619). The supplemental letter provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 3, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: November 11, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 23, 2014, January 13, 2015, January 21, 2015, 
April 1, 2015, and May 27, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Waterford 
Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR). This change clarified, in the UFSAR, how the pressurizer 
heaters function is met for natural circulation at the onset of a loss-
of-offsite power concurrent with the specific single point 
vulnerability.
    Date of issuance: August 31, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 245. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15139A483; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
UFSAR.

[[Page 58523]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45474). The supplements dated October 23, 2014, January 13, 2015, 
January 21, 2015, April 1, 2015, and May 27, 2015, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: November 1, 2013, as 
supplemented by letters dated January 21, February 14, February 25, 
March 10, May 14, June 13, October 10, December 11, 2014, and February 
18, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment includes changes to 
the NMP2 Technical Specifications (TSs) necessary to: (1) Implement the 
Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) expanded 
operating domain; (2) change the stability solution to Detect and 
Suppress Solution--Confirmation Density (DSS-CD); (3) use the TRACG04 
analysis code; and (4) increase the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power 
Ratio (SLMCPR) for two recirculation loops in operation.
    Date of issuance: September 2, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 151. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15223B144; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 
45491).
    The supplemental letters dated January 21, February 14, February 
25, March 10, May 14, June 13, December 11, 2014, and February 18, 
2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 2, 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: November 7, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 13, 2015, and August 10, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) associated with the primary containment 
leakage rate testing program. Specifically, the amendments extend the 
frequencies for performance of the Type A containment integrated 
leakage rate test and the Type C containment isolation valve leakage 
rate test, which are required by 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, ``Primary 
Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: September 8, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendments Nos.: 302 and 306. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15196A559; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 20, 2015 (80 FR 
2749). The supplemental letters dated April 13, 2015, and August 10, 
2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 8, 2014, and January 21, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Paragraph 
2.C.(5)(a) of the renewed facility operating license and the approved 
Fire Protection Program as described in the Updated Safety Analysis 
Report, based on the reactor coolant system thermal hydraulic response 
evaluation of a postulated control room fire, performed for changes to 
the alternative shutdown methodology.
    Date of issuance: September 11, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 45 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 214. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15183A052; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment 
revised the Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR 
15151). The supplemental letters dated December 8, 2014, and January 
21, 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 September 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards 
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public 
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)

    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 for the 
amendment 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.

[[Page 58524]]

    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.

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

    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC's Web 
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR's Reference staff 
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 
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 petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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 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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing 
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any 
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.


[[Page 58525]]


PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-272, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 
Unit No. 1, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 2, 2015.
    Description of amendment: The amendment removes the pressurizer 
power operated relief valve position indication instrumentation from 
the accident monitoring instrumentation Technical Specifications (TSs) 
and the associated surveillance requirements.
    Date of issuance: September 4, 2015.
    Effective date: September 4, 2015.
    Amendment No.: 310. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15245A636; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, State consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in an SE dated September 4, 2015.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of September 2015.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-24472 Filed 9-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P