80 FR 46345 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 149 (August 4, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 149 (August 4, 2015)
| Page Range | 46345-46357 | |
| FR Document | 2015-18896 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 46345-46357] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-18896] [[Page 46345]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0181] 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 July 9, 2015, to July 22, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on July 21, 2015. DATES: Comments must be filed by September 30, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 5, 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-2015-0181. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. 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, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927 email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0181 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-2015-0181. 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 [email protected]. 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-2015-0181, 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. [[Page 46346]] 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 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 [email protected], 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 [[Page 46347]] 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 [email protected], 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 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. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: June 23, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15190A381. Description of amendment request: The amendments would delete text from the Technical Specifications that was included to facilitate a phased implementation of new nuclear instrumentation systems. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: Criterion 1: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems[,] and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event witin the assumed acceptance limits. Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2: Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any [SSC] or its function during accident conditions. No new or different accidents result from the changes proposed. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant or any changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. [[Page 46348]] Criterion 3: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Given the above discussion, it is concluded [that] the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: May 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15133A452. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the emergency plan by changing the emergency action levels from a scheme based upon Revision 4 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? Response: No. These changes affect the HBRSEP2 [H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2] Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect any equipment related to accident mitigation. Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. These changes affect the HBRSEP2 Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. They do not modify any plant equipment and there is no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to perform their intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified and no changes are being made to the method in which plant operations are conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce an 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? Response: No. These changes affect the HBRSEP2 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. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247, and 50- 286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Westchester County, New York Date of amendment request: June 16, 2015. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15173A070. Description of amendment request: The amendments would change the Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date from June 30, 2016, to December 31, 2017. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? [[Page 46349]] Response: No. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: June 22, 2015. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15173A380. Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date from June 30, 2016, to December 15, 2017. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request: June 11, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15162A736. Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the PNP Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date from the previously approved date of June 30, 2016, to December 15, 2017. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the CSP implementation schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the CSP implementation schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, [[Page 46350]] limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the CSP implementation schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601. NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of amendment request: July 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15198A027. Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TSs). The proposed change would add a note to TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.4.1.3.4, which requires verification that residual heat removal loop operations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. 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, along with NRC edits in square brackets, 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. SR 4.4.1.3.4 verifies RHR [residual heat removal] loop locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The proposed change adds a note to allow SR 4.4.1.3.4 to be performed 12 hours after entering the Mode of Applicability. Gas accumulation in the subject system is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed note does not change SR 4.4.1.3.4 which ensures that the subject system continues to be capable of performing its assumed safety function and is not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, 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 previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408- 0420. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: April 3, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated June 2, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15093A291 and ML15153A193, respectively. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' to support planned plant modifications to replace the existing source range (SR) and intermediate range (IR) nuclear instrumentation with a Thermo Scientific Neutron Flux Monitoring Systems. Specifically, the changes would modify the SR and IR neutron flux reactor trip Allowable Values and the permissive P-6 reset value, and would add two new footnotes to the Channel Functional Test and Channel Calibration in TS 3/4.3.1, Table 4.3-1. 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The Nuclear Instrumentation System (NIS) provides indication and plant protection through the reactor trip function; it is not an accident initiator or precursor. The reactor trip is part of the plant's accident mitigation response. Thus, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The performance of the replacement SR and IR detectors and associated equipment will equal or exceed that of the existing Westinghouse instrumentation. The proposed changes are based on accepted industry standards and will preserve assumptions in the applicable accident analyses. The proposed changes do not affect the integrity of the fission product barriers utilized for the mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a result of an accident. The proposed changes do not alter any assumptions previously made in the radiological consequences evaluations, nor do they affect mitigation of the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 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 accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The manner in which the Reactor Trip System (RTS) provides plant protection is not changed. The replacement SR and IR detectors and associated equipment do not affect accident initiation sequences or response scenarios as modeled in the safety analyses. The SR and IR detectors and associated equipment are not accident initiators or precursors. The only physical changes to the plant involve the replacement detectors and associated equipment. The replacement SR and IR detectors and [[Page 46351]] associated equipment have been designed to applicable regulatory and industry standards. No changes to the overall manner in which the plant is operated are being proposed. Existing accident scenarios remain unchanged and new or different accident scenarios are not created. The types of accident defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) continue to represent the credible spectrum of events analyzed to determine safe plant operation. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their intended functions. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and the containment. Neither the modification to replace the SR and IR detectors and associated equipment, nor the proposed Technical Specification changes will impact these barriers. Accident mitigating equipment will not be adversely impacted as a result of the modification. The safety systems credited in the safety analyses continue to remain available to perform their required mitigation functions. The proposed changes do not affect any safety analysis conclusions because the SR and IR neutron flux reactor trips are not explicitly credited in any accident analyses. Their functional capability enhances the overall reliability of the Reactor Protection System. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. 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. Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: May 29, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15149A473. Description of amendment request: The amendment would change a license condition pertaining to the PBAPS, Unit 3, replacement steam dryer (RSD). Currently, the license condition requires that a revised analysis for the RSD be submitted to the NRC, as a report, at least 90 days prior to the start of the Unit 3 extended power uprate (EPU) outage. The proposed amendment would reduce the period before the outage by which the analysis is to be submitted from 90 days to 30 days. The licensee indicated that the EPU outage is scheduled to start on September 14, 2015. Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: June 10, 2015 (80 FR 32991). Expiration date of individual notice: July 10, 2015 (public comments); August 10, 2015 (hearing requests). Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee Date of amendment request: June 17, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15170A474. Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the technical specifications to define support systems needed in the first 48 hours after a unit shutdown when steam generators are not available for heat removal. The proposed change is required to support dual unit operation of WBN (a licensing decision for WBN, Unit 2, is currently expected to be made in the fall of 2015). The proposed amendment also requests changes consistent with Technical Specification Task Force- 273-A, Revision 2, ``SFDP [Safety Function Determination Program] Clarifications,'' to provide clarification related to the requirements of the SFDP. Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42554). Expiration date of individual notice: August 16, 2015 (public comments); September 15, 2015 (hearing requests). IV. 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 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. DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan Date of amendment request: September 16, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated April 17, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating [[Page 46352]] specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The changes are based on NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.'' Date of issuance: July 14, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 201. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15155B416; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 12, 2014 (79 FR 67199). The supplemental letter dated April 17, 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 July 14, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: None. 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 25, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated January 13, 2015, and May 26, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed the definition in the Technical Specifications (TSs) for RECENTLY IRRADIATED FUEL. Specifically, the amendments revised requirements pertaining to secondary containment hatches in order to facilitate activities performed during refueling outages. Date of issuance: July 17, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 298 and 301. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15162A139; 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 30, 2014 (79 FR 58816). The supplemental letters dated January 13, 2015, and May 26, 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 July 17, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Date of amendment request: September 18, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated February 17, 2015, and April 2, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.16, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' by replacing the reference to Regulatory Guide 1.163 (September 1995) with a reference to Topical Report (TR) Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A, and Section 4.1, ``Limitations and Conditions for NEI TR 94-01, Revision 2,'' of the NRC Safety Evaluation in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A, dated October 2008. This reference is the implementation document to develop 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, Option B, performance-based primary containment leakage testing program for CCNPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The changes allow an increase in the Type A test interval from the current 10 years to a maximum of 15 years, and allow an increase in the Type C test interval from the current 60 months to 75 months. The change also deletes the one-time exceptions granted to the Type A test interval and exceptions from the post- modification Type A test when the steam generators at CCNPP are replaced. Date of issuance: July 16, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 75 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 310 and 288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15154A661; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70214). The supplemental letters dated February 17, 2015, and April 2, 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 July 16, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: September 4, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated December 1, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the BVPS Emergency Planning Zone boundary to align it with the boundary that is currently in use by the emergency management agencies of the three counties that implement public protective actions around BVPS. Date of issuance: July 9, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 294 and 181. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15131A006; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments revised the Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64224). The supplemental letter dated December 1, 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 9, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. [[Page 46353]] Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: July 14, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated June 30, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by modifying or adding surveillance requirements to verify that system locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and to provide allowances that permit performance of the verification. The changes address NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759), as described in Revision 2 of Technical Specification Task Force-523, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075). Date of issuance: July 20, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 224 and 174. The amendments are in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15182A160; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64225). The licensee's supplement dated June 30, 2015, did not expand the scope of the request 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 July 20, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: April 9 2014, as supplemented by letters dated August 29, 2014, and February 20, April 3, and July 7, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequency requirements to a licensee-controlled program with implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk Informed Technical Specification Initiative 5b, Risk Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). The NEI 04-10 methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies, consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740176). The changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The Federal Register notice published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the availability of TSTF-425, Revision 3. The amendments also include editorial changes to the TSs, administrative deviations from TSTF-425, and other changes resulting from differences between the licensee's TSs and the TSs on which TSTF- 425 was based. Date of issuance: July 16, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 263 and 258. The amendments are in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15166A320; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: Amendments revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The NRC staff initially made a proposed determination that the amendment request dated April 9, 2014, involved no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) (July 22, 2014, 79 FR 44551). By letters dated August 29, 2014, and February 20, 2015, the licensee provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the application and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed NSHC determination, as published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2014 (79 FR 44551). Subsequently, by letter dated April 3, 2015, the licensee supplemented its amendment request with a proposed change that expanded the scope of the request. Therefore, the NRC published a second proposed NSHC determination in the Federal Register on May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27199), which superseded the notice dated July 22, 2014 (79 FR 44551). The licensee's supplement dated July 7, 2015, did not expand the scope of the request and did not change the staff's proposed NSHC determination that was published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27199). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request: July 17, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated February 19, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment moved the Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) and Single Loop Operation LHGR limits from the Technical Requirements Manual to the Technical Specifications (TSs). Accordingly, the amendment added TS 3.2.3, ``Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR),'' and modified TS 1.1, ``Definitions''; TS 3.4.1, ``Recirculation Loops Operating''; TS 3.7.7, ``The Main Turbine Bypass System''; and TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).'' Date of issuance: July 14, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 251. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15168A171; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR 58820). The supplemental letter dated February 19, 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 July 14, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. [[Page 46354]] NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin Date of amendment request: July 18, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated November 7, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Cyber Security Plan for Point Beach Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2, by revising the completion date of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security Plan Implementation schedule. Date of issuance: July 14, 2015. Effective date: These amendments will be effective as of their date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 252 and 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15155A539; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: Amendments revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 2015 (80 FR 536). The supplemental letter dated November 7, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC., Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of amendment request: July 24, 2014, as supplemented by two letters dated December 11, 2014, and a letter dated June 30, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Seabrook Station Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.3.1, ``Radiation Monitoring for Plant Operations,'' to eliminate duplicate requirements, resolve an inconsistency, and correct a deficiency. Date of issuance: July 17, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 149. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15096A131; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR 58821). The supplemental letters dated December 11, 2014, and June 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 amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 17, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50- 362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California Date of amendment request: March 21, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated October 1, 2014; and February 23, February 25, and March 18, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the SONGS, Units 2 and 3, Facility Operating Licenses and associated Technical Specifications (TSs) to conform to the permanent shutdown and defueled status of these facilities. Date of issuance: July 17, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 230 and 223. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15139A390; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 16, 2014 (79 FR 55513). The supplemental letters dated October 1, 2014; and February 23, February 25, 2015, and March 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 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 July 17, 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. 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 [[Page 46355]] 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, http://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 [email protected]. 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. 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 [email protected], 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 [[Page 46356]] 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 [email protected], 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 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. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-315, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, Michigan Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated July 2, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' by adding a new condition for one or more inoperable required channels for main feedwater pump trips, changing Table 3.3.2-1 to add a footnote to the Applicable Mode Column for Mode 2 and to reflect the new Condition, and renumbering existing Conditions. Date of issuance: July 10, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 328. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15187A002; documents related to the amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-58: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public [[Page 46357]] notice of the proposed amendment was published in The Herald-Palladium, located in the City of St. Joseph, Berrien County, Michigan, on July 3 and July 4, 2015. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments were received. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, State consultation, public comments, and final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 2015. Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of July, 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. George A. Wilson, Jr., Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2015-18896 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46345
NUCLEAR REGULATORY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Your request should state that the NRC
COMMISSION Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear does not routinely edit comment
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear submissions to remove such information
[NRC–2015–0181] Regulatory Commission, Washington DC before making the comment
20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1927 submissions available to the public or
Biweekly Notice; Applications and email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov. entering the comment submissions into
Amendments to Facility Operating SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADAMS.
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards I. Obtaining Information and II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
Considerations Submitting Comments of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
A. Obtaining Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Proposed No Significant Hazards
Commission. Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– Consideration Determination
ACTION: Biweekly notice. 0181 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this The Commission has made a
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) action. You may obtain publicly- proposed determination that the
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as available information related to this following amendment requests involve
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear action by any of the following methods: no significant hazards consideration.
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Under the Commission’s regulations in
publishing this regular biweekly notice. http://www.regulations.gov and search section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
The Act requires the Commission to for Docket ID NRC–2015–0181. Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this
publish notice of any amendments • NRC’s Agencywide Documents means that operation of the facility in
issued, or proposed to be issued, and Access and Management System accordance with the proposed
grants the Commission the authority to (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- amendment would not (1) involve a
issue and make immediately effective available documents online in the significant increase in the probability or
any amendment to an operating license ADAMS Public Documents collection at consequences of an accident previously
or combined license, as applicable, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of
upon a determination by the adams.html. To begin the search, select a new or different kind of accident from
Commission that such amendment ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then any accident previously evaluated; or
involves no significant hazards select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS (3) involve a significant reduction in a
consideration, notwithstanding the Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, margin of safety. The basis for this
pendency before the Commission of a please contact the NRC’s Public proposed determination for each
request for a hearing from any person. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at amendment request is shown below.
This biweekly notice includes all 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by The Commission is seeking public
notices of amendments issued, or email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The comments on this proposed
proposed to be issued from July 9, 2015, ADAMS accession number for each determination. Any comments received
to July 22, 2015. The last biweekly document referenced (if it is available in within 30 days after the date of
notice was published on July 21, 2015. ADAMS) is provided the first time that publication of this notice will be
DATES: Comments must be filed by it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY considered in making any final
September 30, 2015. A request for a INFORMATION section.
determination.
hearing must be filed by October 5, • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at Normally, the Commission will not
2015. issue the amendment until the
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments White Flint North, 11555 Rockville expiration of 60 days after the date of
by any of the following methods (unless Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. publication of this notice. The
this document describes a different Commission may issue the license
method for submitting comments on a B. Submitting Comments amendment before expiration of the 60-
specific subject): Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– day period provided that its final
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 0181, facility name, unit number(s), determination is that the amendment
http://www.regulations.gov and search application date, and subject in your involves no significant hazards
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0181. Address comment submission. consideration. In addition, the
questions about NRC dockets to Carol The NRC cautions you not to include Commission may issue the amendment
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; identifying or contact information that prior to the expiration of the 30-day
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For you do not want to be publicly comment period should circumstances
technical questions, contact the disclosed in your comment submission. change during the 30-day comment
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER The NRC will post all comment period such that failure to act in a
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this submissions at http:// timely way would result, for example in
document. www.regulations.gov, as well as enter derating or shutdown of the facility.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, the comment submissions into ADAMS. Should the Commission take action
Office of Administration, Mail Stop: The NRC does not routinely edit prior to the expiration of either the
OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear comment submissions to remove comment period or the notice period, it
Regulatory Commission, Washington, identifying or contact information. will publish in the Federal Register a
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DC 20555–0001. If you are requesting or aggregating notice of issuance. Should the
For additional direction on obtaining comments from other persons for Commission make a final No Significant
information and submitting comments, submission to the NRC, then you should Hazards Consideration Determination,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and inform those persons not to include any hearing will take place after
Submitting Comments’’ in the identifying or contact information that issuance. The Commission expects that
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of they do not want to be publicly the need to take this action will occur
this document. disclosed in their comment submission. very infrequently.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46494/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46347
submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba
should be in Portable Document Format as of the time of deposit in the mail, or Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited County, South Carolina; Docket Nos.
available on the NRC’s public Web site delivery service upon depositing the 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg
submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having County, North Carolina
complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing Date of amendment request: June 23,
using E-Filing, may require a participant 2015. A publicly-available version is in
system. To be timely, an electronic
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding ADAMS under Accession No.
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
officer subsequently determines that the ML15190A381.
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists. Description of amendment request:
a transmission, the E-Filing system The amendments would delete text from
time-stamps the document and sends Documents submitted in adjudicatory the Technical Specifications that was
the submitter an email notice proceedings will appear in the NRC’s included to facilitate a phased
confirming receipt of the document. The electronic hearing docket which is implementation of new nuclear
E-Filing system also distributes an email available to the public at http:// instrumentation systems.
notice that provides access to the ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
document to the NRC’s Office of the Basis for proposed no significant
pursuant to an order of the Commission, hazards consideration determination:
General Counsel and any others who or the presiding officer. Participants are
have advised the Office of the Secretary As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
requested not to include personal licensee has provided its analysis of the
that they wish to participate in the privacy information, such as social
proceeding, so that the filer need not issue of no significant hazards
security numbers, home addresses, or consideration, which is presented
serve the documents on those home phone numbers in their filings,
participants separately. Therefore, below:
unless an NRC regulation or other law
applicants and other participants (or Criterion 1:
their counsel or representative) must requires submission of such
information. However, in some Does the proposed amendment involve a
apply for and receive a digital ID significant increase in the probability or
certificate before a hearing request/ instances, a request to intervene will
require including information on local consequences of an accident previously
petition to intervene is filed so that they evaluated?
can obtain access to the document via residence in order to demonstrate a Response: No.
the E-Filing system. proximity assertion of interest in the This LAR [license amendment request]
A person filing electronically using proceeding. With respect to copyrighted proposes administrative non-technical
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system works, except for limited excerpts that changes only. These proposed changes do not
may seek assistance by contacting the serve the purpose of the adjudicatory adversely affect accident initiators or
NRC Meta System Help Desk through filings and would constitute a Fair Use precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the application, participants are requested conditions, or configurations of the facility.
NRC’s public Web site at http:// The proposed changes do not alter or prevent
not to include copyrighted materials in
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- the ability of structures, systems[,] and
their submission. components (SSCs) to perform their intended
submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- Petitions for leave to intervene must function to mitigate the consequences of an
be filed no later than 60 days from the initiating event witin the assumed
free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC acceptance limits.
Meta System Help Desk is available date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave Given the above discussion, it is concluded
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., the proposed amendment does not
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, to intervene, and motions for leave to significantly increase the probability or
excluding government holidays. file new or amended contentions that consequences of an accident previously
Participants who believe that they are filed after the 60-day deadline will evaluated.
have a good cause for not submitting not be entertained absent a Criterion 2:
documents electronically must file an determination by the presiding officer
exemption request, in accordance with Does the proposed amendment create the
that the filing demonstrates good cause possibility of a new or different kind of
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR accident from any accident previously
filing requesting authorization to 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). evaluated?
continue to submit documents in paper Response: No.
For further details with respect to
format. Such filings must be submitted The LAR proposes administrative non-
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the these license amendment applications,
technical changes only. The proposed
Office of the Secretary of the see the application for amendment changes will not alter the design
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory which is available for public inspection requirements of any [SSC] or its function
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For during accident conditions. No new or
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and additional direction on accessing different accidents result from the changes
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, information related to this document, proposed. The changes do not involve a
express mail, or expedited delivery see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and physical alteration of the plant or any
changes in methods governing normal plant
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
service to the Office of the Secretary, Submitting Comments’’ section of this
operation. The changes do not alter
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, document. assumptions made in the safety analysis.
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD Given the above discussion, it is concluded
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and the proposed amendment does not create the
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a possibility of a new or different kind of
document in this manner are accident from any accident previously
responsible for serving the document on evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46494/page/3.svg)
![46348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
Criterion 3: Response: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Does the proposed amendment involve a These changes affect the HBRSEP2 [H. B. Docket Nos. 50–003, 50–247, and 50–
significant reduction in the margin of safety? Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2] 286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating,
Response: No. Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Westchester
This LAR proposes administrative non- requirements of the Operating License or the County, New York
technical changes only. The proposed Technical Specifications. The proposed
changes do not alter the manner in which changes do not modify any plant equipment Date of amendment request: June 16,
safety limits, limiting safety system settings and do not impact any failure modes that 2015. A publicly available version is in
or limiting conditions for operation are could lead to an accident. Additionally, the ADAMS under Accession No.
determined. The safety analysis acceptance proposed changes do not impact the ML15173A070.
criteria are not affected by these changes. The consequence of any analyzed accident since Description of amendment request:
proposed changes will not result in plant the changes do not affect any equipment The amendments would change the
operation in a configuration outside the related to accident mitigation. Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit
design basis. The proposed changes do not Based on this discussion, the proposed Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Cyber Security Plan
adversely affect systems that respond to amendment does not increase the probability (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain or consequences of an accident previously
the plant in a safe shutdown condition. date from June 30, 2016, to December
evaluated.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded 31, 2017.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
[that] the proposed amendment does not Basis for proposed no significant
the possibility of a new or different kind of
involve a significant reduction in the margin accident from any accident previously
hazards consideration determination:
of safety. evaluated? As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
The NRC staff has reviewed the Response: No. licensee has provided its analysis of the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this These changes affect the HBRSEP2 issue of no significant hazards
review, it appears that the three Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the consideration, which is presented
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are requirements of the Operating License or the below:
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Technical Specifications. They do not modify 1. Does the proposed change involve a
any plant equipment and there is no impact significant increase in the probability or
proposes to determine that the
on the capability of the existing equipment consequences of an accident previously
amendment request involves no to perform their intended functions. No evaluated?
significant hazards consideration. system setpoints are being modified and no Response: No.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, changes are being made to the method in The proposed change to the CSP
Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy which plant operations are conducted. No Implementation Schedule is administrative
Corporation, 526 South Church Street— new failure modes are introduced by the in nature. This change does not alter accident
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. proposed changes. The proposed amendment analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. does not introduce an accident initiator or affect the function of plant systems or the
Pascarelli. malfunctions that would cause a new or manner in which systems are operated,
different kind of accident. maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. Therefore, the proposed amendment does The proposed change does not require any
50–261, H.B. Robinson Steam Electric not create the possibility of a new or different plant modifications which affect the
Plant Unit No. 2, Darlington County, kind of accident from any accident performance capability of the structures,
South Carolina previously evaluated. systems, and components relied upon to
3. Does the proposed amendment involve mitigate the consequences of postulated
Date of amendment request: May 13, accidents and has no impact on the
2015. A publicly-available version is in a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
probability or consequences of an accident
Response: No.
ADAMS under Accession No. previously evaluated.
These changes affect the HBRSEP2
ML15133A452. Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the
Therefore, the proposed change does not
Description of amendment request: involve a significant increase in the
requirements of the Operating License or the probability or consequences of an accident
The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications. The proposed
emergency plan by changing the previously evaluated.
changes do not affect any of the assumptions 2. Does the proposed change create the
emergency action levels from a scheme used in the accident analysis, nor do they possibility of a new or different kind of
based upon Revision 4 of Nuclear affect any operability requirements for accident from any accident previously
Energy Institute (NEI) 99–01, equipment important to plant safety. evaluated?
‘‘Methodology for Development of Therefore, the proposed changes will not Response: No.
Emergency Action Levels,’’ to one based result in a significant reduction in the margin The proposed change to the CSP
upon Revision 6 of NEI 99–01, of safety as defined in the bases for technical Implementation Schedule is administrative
‘‘Development of Emergency Action specifications covered in this license in nature. This proposed change does not
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.’’ The amendment request. alter accident analysis assumptions, add any
initiators, or affect the function of plant
NRC formally endorsed NEI 99–01, The NRC staff has reviewed the systems or the manner in which systems are
Revision 6, in a letter dated March 28, licensee’s analysis and, based on this operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
2013 (ADAMS Accession No. review, it appears that the three inspected. The proposed change does not
ML12346A463). standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are require any plant modifications which affect
Basis for proposed no significant satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the performance capability of the structures,
hazards consideration determination: proposes to determine that the systems, and components relied upon to
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the mitigate the consequences of postulated
amendment request involves no accidents and does not create the possibility
licensee has provided its analysis of the significant hazards consideration. of a new or different kind of accident from
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
issue of no significant hazards
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, any accident previously evaluated.
consideration, which is presented
Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Therefore, the proposed change does not
below: create the possibility of a new or different
Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street,
1. Does the proposed amendment involve Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC kind of accident from any accident
a significant increase in the probability or previously evaluated.
consequences of an accident previously
28202. 3. Does the proposed change involve a
evaluated? NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. significant reduction in a margin of safety?
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46494/page/4.svg)
![46350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
limiting safety system settings, and safety Mode of Applicability. Gas accumulation in Description of amendment request:
limits specified in the technical the subject system is not an initiator of any The amendments would revise
specifications. The proposed change to the accident previously evaluated. As a result, Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1,
CSP implementation schedule is the probability of any accident previously ‘‘Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,’’
administrative in nature. In addition, the evaluated is not significantly increased. The
milestone date delay for full implementation proposed note does not change SR 4.4.1.3.4
to support planned plant modifications
of the CSP has no substantive impact because which ensures that the subject system to replace the existing source range (SR)
other measures have been taken which continues to be capable of performing its and intermediate range (IR) nuclear
provide adequate protection during this assumed safety function and is not rendered instrumentation with a Thermo
period of time. Because there is no change to inoperable due to gas accumulation. Scientific Neutron Flux Monitoring
established safety margins as a result of this Thus, the proposed change does not Systems. Specifically, the changes
change, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the would modify the SR and IR neutron
involve a significant reduction in a margin of probability or consequences of an accident flux reactor trip Allowable Values and
safety. previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not the permissive P–6 reset value, and
2. Does the proposed change create the
involve a significant reduction in a margin of possibility of a new or different kind of
would add two new footnotes to the
safety. accident from any previously evaluated? Channel Functional Test and Channel
Response: No. Calibration in TS 3/4.3.1, Table 4.3–1.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Basis for proposed no significant
licensee’s analysis and, based on this The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new hazards consideration determination:
review, it appears that the three or different type of equipment will be As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are installed) or a change in the methods licensee has provided its analysis of the
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff governing normal plant operation. In issue of no significant hazards
proposes to determine that the addition, the proposed change does not consideration, which is presented
amendment request involves no impose any new or different requirements
below:
significant hazards consideration. that could initiate an accident. The proposed
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, change does not alter assumptions made in 1. Do the proposed changes involve a
Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, Inc., the safety analysis and is consistent with the significant increase in the probability or
safety analysis assumptions. consequences of an accident previously
440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY
Therefore, the proposed change does not evaluated?
10601. Response: No.
create the possibility of a new or different
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. The Nuclear Instrumentation System (NIS)
kind of accident from any accident
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, et al., previously evaluated. provides indication and plant protection
3. Does the proposed change involve a through the reactor trip function; it is not an
Docket No. 50–443, Seabrook Station,
significant reduction in the margin of safety? accident initiator or precursor. The reactor
Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New trip is part of the plant’s accident mitigation
Response: No.
Hampshire response. Thus, the probability of an accident
The proposed change does not adversely
Date of amendment request: July 13, affect any current plant safety margins or the previously evaluated is not significantly
2015. A publicly-available version is in reliability of the equipment assumed in the increased.
ADAMS under Accession No. safety analysis. Therefore, there are no The performance of the replacement SR
changes being made to any safety analysis and IR detectors and associated equipment
ML15198A027. will equal or exceed that of the existing
Description of amendment request: assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect Westinghouse instrumentation. The proposed
The amendment would change the changes are based on accepted industry
plant safety as a result of the proposed
Technical Specifications (TSs). The change. standards and will preserve assumptions in
proposed change would add a note to Therefore, the proposed change does not the applicable accident analyses. The
TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) involve a significant reduction in a margin of proposed changes do not affect the integrity
4.4.1.3.4, which requires verification safety. of the fission product barriers utilized for the
that residual heat removal loop mitigation of radiological dose consequences
The NRC staff has reviewed the as a result of an accident. The proposed
operations susceptible to gas licensee’s analysis and, based on this
accumulation are sufficiently filled with changes do not alter any assumptions
review, it appears that the three previously made in the radiological
water in accordance with the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consequences evaluations, nor do they affect
Surveillance Frequency Control satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff mitigation of the radiological consequences
Program. proposes to determine that the of an accident previously evaluated.
Basis for proposed no significant Therefore, the proposed changes do not
amendment request involves no
hazards consideration determination: involve a significant increase in the
significant hazards consideration.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Attorney for licensee: William Blair, probability or consequences of an accident
licensee has provided its analysis of the previously evaluated.
Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida 2. Do the proposed changes create the
issue of no significant hazards Power & Light Company, P.O. Box
consideration, along with NRC edits in possibility of a new or different kind of
14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420. accident from any accident previously
square brackets, which is presented NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. evaluated?
below: Broaddus. Response: No.
1. Does the proposed change involve a The manner in which the Reactor Trip
significant increase in the probability or PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 System (RTS) provides plant protection is not
consequences of an accident previously and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating changed. The replacement SR and IR
evaluated? Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem detectors and associated equipment do not
Response: No. County, New Jersey affect accident initiation sequences or
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SR 4.4.1.3.4 verifies RHR [residual heat response scenarios as modeled in the safety
Date of amendment request: April 3,
removal] loop locations susceptible to gas analyses. The SR and IR detectors and
accumulation are sufficiently filled with
2015, as supplemented by letter dated associated equipment are not accident
water in accordance with the Surveillance June 2, 2015. Publicly-available versions initiators or precursors. The only physical
Frequency Control Program. The proposed are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. changes to the plant involve the replacement
change adds a note to allow SR 4.4.1.3.4 to ML15093A291 and ML15153A193, detectors and associated equipment. The
be performed 12 hours after entering the respectively. replacement SR and IR detectors and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46494/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46351
associated equipment have been designed to issued or proposed to be issued Expiration date of individual notice:
applicable regulatory and industry standards. involving no significant hazards August 16, 2015 (public comments);
No changes to the overall manner in which consideration. September 15, 2015 (hearing requests).
the plant is operated are being proposed.
Existing accident scenarios remain For details, see the individual notice IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
unchanged and new or different accident in the Federal Register on the day and to Facility Operating Licenses and
scenarios are not created. The types of page cited. This notice does not extend Combined Licenses and Final
accident defined in the Updated Final Safety the notice period of the original notice. Determination of No Significant
Analysis Report (UFSAR) continue to
represent the credible spectrum of events Exelon Generation Company, LLC and Hazards Consideration and
analyzed to determine safe plant operation. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–278, Opportunity for a Hearing. (Exigent
Therefore, the proposed changes do not Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Public Announcement or Emergency
create the possibility of a new or different (PBAPS), Unit 3, York and Lancaster Circumstances)
kind of accident from any previously Counties, Pennsylvania During the period since publication of
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a Date of amendment request: May 29, the last biweekly notice, the
significant reduction in a margin of safety? 2015. A publicly-available version is in Commission has issued the following
Response: No. ADAMS under Accession No. amendments. The Commission has
Margin of safety is related to the ML15149A473. determined for each of these
confidence in the ability of the fission Description of amendment request: amendments that the application
product barriers to perform their intended complies with the standards and
functions. These barriers include the fuel The amendment would change a license
condition pertaining to the PBAPS, Unit requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
boundary, and the containment. Neither the 3, replacement steam dryer (RSD).
modification to replace the SR and IR Currently, the license condition requires Commission’s rules and regulations.
detectors and associated equipment, nor the that a revised analysis for the RSD be The Commission has made appropriate
proposed Technical Specification changes submitted to the NRC, as a report, at findings as required by the Act and the
will impact these barriers. Accident least 90 days prior to the start of the Commission’s rules and regulations in
mitigating equipment will not be adversely Unit 3 extended power uprate (EPU) 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
impacted as a result of the modification. The the license amendment.
safety systems credited in the safety analyses outage. The proposed amendment
would reduce the period before the A notice of consideration of issuance
continue to remain available to perform their of amendment to facility operating
required mitigation functions. The proposed outage by which the analysis is to be
submitted from 90 days to 30 days. The license or combined license, as
changes do not affect any safety analysis
conclusions because the SR and IR neutron licensee indicated that the EPU outage applicable, proposed no significant
flux reactor trips are not explicitly credited is scheduled to start on September 14, hazards consideration determination,
in any accident analyses. Their functional 2015. and opportunity for a hearing in
capability enhances the overall reliability of connection with these actions, was
Date of publication of individual
the Reactor Protection System. published in the Federal Register as
Therefore, the proposed changes do not notice in Federal Register: June 10,
indicated.
involve a significant reduction in the margin 2015 (80 FR 32991).
Unless otherwise indicated, the
of safety. Expiration date of individual notice: Commission has determined that these
The NRC staff has reviewed the July 10, 2015 (public comments); amendments satisfy the criteria for
licensee’s analysis and, based on this August 10, 2015 (hearing requests). categorical exclusion in accordance
review, it appears that the three Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee impact statement or environmental
proposes to determine that the assessment need be prepared for these
Date of amendment request: June 17,
amendment request involves no amendments. If the Commission has
2015. A publicly-available version is in
significant hazards consideration. prepared an environmental assessment
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, ADAMS under Accession No.
under the special circumstances
PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, ML15170A474.
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. Description of amendment request: made a determination based on that
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. The amendment would modify the assessment, it is so indicated.
Broaddus. technical specifications to define For further details with respect to the
support systems needed in the first 48 action see (1) the applications for
III. Previously Published Notices of hours after a unit shutdown when steam
Consideration of Issuance of amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
generators are not available for heat the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Amendments to Facility Operating removal. The proposed change is
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Evaluation and/or Environmental
required to support dual unit operation Assessment as indicated. All of these
Proposed No Significant Hazards of WBN (a licensing decision for WBN,
Consideration Determination, and items can be accessed as described in
Unit 2, is currently expected to be made the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Opportunity for a Hearing in the fall of 2015). The proposed Submitting Comments’’ section of this
The following notices were previously amendment also requests changes document.
published as separate individual consistent with Technical Specification
notices. The notice content was the Task Force-273–A, Revision 2, ‘‘SFDP DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50–
341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
same as above. They were published as [Safety Function Determination
individual notices either because time Program] Clarifications,’’ to provide Date of amendment request:
did not allow the Commission to wait clarification related to the requirements September 16, 2014, as supplemented
for this biweekly notice or because the of the SFDP. by letter dated April 17, 2015.
action involved exigent circumstances. Date of publication of individual Brief description of amendment: The
They are repeated here because the notice in Federal Register: July 17, amendment revised the Technical
biweekly notice lists all amendments 2015 (80 FR 42554). Specifications (TSs) by relocating
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46494/page/7.svg)
![46352 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
specific surveillance frequencies to a Date of initial notice in Federal Date of initial notice in Federal
licensee-controlled program. The Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR
changes are based on NRC-approved TS 58816). The supplemental letters dated 70214). The supplemental letters dated
Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler January 13, 2015, and May 26, 2015, February 17, 2015, and April 2, 2015,
TSTF–425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate provided additional information that provided additional information that
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee clarified the application, did not expand clarified the application, did not expand
Control—RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] the scope of the application as originally the scope of the application as originally
Initiative 5b.’’ noticed, and did not change the staff’s noticed, and did not change the staff’s
Date of issuance: July 14, 2015. original proposed no significant hazards original proposed no significant hazards
Effective date: As of the date of consideration determination as consideration determination as
issuance and shall be implemented published in the Federal Register. published in the Federal Register.
within 120 days of issuance. The Commission’s related evaluation
Amendment No.: 201. A publicly- of the amendments is contained in a The Commission’s related evaluation
available version is in ADAMS under Safety Evaluation dated July 17, 2015. of the amendment is contained in a
Accession No. ML15155B416; No significant hazards consideration Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 2015.
documents related to this amendment comments received: No. No significant hazards consideration
are listed in the Safety Evaluation comments received: No.
enclosed with the amendment. Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Facility Operating License No. NPF– Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
43: Amendment revised the Facility Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334
Operating License and TSs. Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power
Date of initial notice in Federal Maryland Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and
Register: November 12, 2014 (79 FR Date of amendment request: 2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
67199). The supplemental letter dated September 18, 2014, as supplemented
April 17, 2015, provided additional by letters dated February 17, 2015, and Date of amendment request:
information that clarified the April 2, 2015. September 4, 2014, as supplemented by
application, did not expand the scope of Brief description of amendments: The letter dated December 1, 2014.
the application as originally noticed, amendments revised Technical Brief description of amendments: The
and did not change the staff’s original Specification (TS) 5.5.16, ‘‘Containment amendments revised the BVPS
proposed no significant hazards Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ by Emergency Planning Zone boundary to
consideration determination as replacing the reference to Regulatory align it with the boundary that is
published in the Federal Register. Guide 1.163 (September 1995) with a currently in use by the emergency
The Commission’s related evaluation reference to Topical Report (TR) Nuclear
of the amendment is contained in a management agencies of the three
Energy Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision counties that implement public
Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2015. 3–A, and Section 4.1, ‘‘Limitations and
No significant hazards consideration protective actions around BVPS.
Conditions for NEI TR 94–01, Revision
comments received: None. Date of issuance: July 9, 2015.
2,’’ of the NRC Safety Evaluation in NEI
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and 94–01, Revision 2–A, dated October Effective date: As of the date of
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 2008. This reference is the issuance and shall be implemented
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic implementation document to develop within 90 days of issuance.
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, Option B, Amendment Nos.: 294 and 181. A
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania performance-based primary publicly-available version is in ADAMS
Date of amendment request: July 25, containment leakage testing program for under Accession No. ML15131A006;
2014, as supplemented by letters dated CCNPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The changes documents related to these amendments
January 13, 2015, and May 26, 2015. allow an increase in the Type A test are listed in the Safety Evaluation
Brief description of amendments: The interval from the current 10 years to a
enclosed with the amendments.
amendments changed the definition in maximum of 15 years, and allow an
increase in the Type C test interval from Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
the Technical Specifications (TSs) for
the current 60 months to 75 months. 66 and NPF–73: Amendments revised
RECENTLY IRRADIATED FUEL.
The change also deletes the one-time the Facility Operating License.
Specifically, the amendments revised
requirements pertaining to secondary exceptions granted to the Type A test Date of initial notice in Federal
containment hatches in order to interval and exceptions from the post- Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR
facilitate activities performed during modification Type A test when the 64224). The supplemental letter dated
refueling outages. steam generators at CCNPP are replaced. December 1, 2014, provided additional
Date of issuance: July 17, 2015. Date of issuance: July 16, 2015. information that clarified the
Effective date: As of the date of Effective date: As of the date of application, did not expand the scope of
issuance and shall be implemented issuance and shall be implemented the application as originally noticed,
within 60 days of issuance. within 75 days of issuance. and did not change the staff’s original
Amendment Nos.: 298 and 301. A Amendment Nos.: 310 and 288. A proposed no significant hazards
publicly-available version is in ADAMS publicly-available version is in ADAMS
consideration determination as
under Accession No. ML15162A139; under Accession No. ML15154A661;
published in the Federal Register.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
documents related to these amendments documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation are listed in the Safety Evaluation The Commission’s related evaluation
enclosed with the amendments. enclosed with the amendments. of the amendment is contained in a
Renewed Facility Operating License Renewed Facility Operating License Safety Evaluation dated July 9, 2015.
Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments No significant hazards consideration
amendments revised the Facility revised the Renewed Facility Operating comments received: No.
Operating Licenses and the TSs. Licenses and TSs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46494/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46353
Florida Power and Light Company, et Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04–10, which superseded the notice dated July
al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. ‘‘Risk Informed Technical Specification 22, 2014 (79 FR 44551). The licensee’s
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie Initiative 5b, Risk Informed Method for supplement dated July 7, 2015, did not
County, Florida Control of Surveillance Frequencies’’ expand the scope of the request and did
Date of amendment request: July 14, (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). not change the staff’s proposed NSHC
2014, as supplemented by letter dated The NEI 04–10 methodology provides determination that was published in the
reasonable acceptance guidelines and Federal Register on May 12, 2015 (80
June 30, 2015.
methods for evaluating the risk increase FR 27199).
Brief description of amendments: The
of proposed changes to surveillance
amendments revised the Technical The Commission’s related evaluation
frequencies, consistent with Regulatory
Specifications (TSs) by modifying or of the amendment is contained in a
Guide 1.177, ‘‘An Approach for Plant-
adding surveillance requirements to Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 2015.
Specific Risk-Informed Decisionmaking:
verify that system locations susceptible
Technical Specifications’’ (ADAMS No significant hazards consideration
to gas accumulation are sufficiently
Accession No. ML003740176). The comments received: No.
filled with water and to provide
changes are consistent with NRC-
allowances that permit performance of Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
approved Technical Specification Task
the verification. The changes address No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station,
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
NRC Generic Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Specifications Change TSTF–425, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core ‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Licensee Control—RITSTF [Risk Date of amendment request: July 17,
Containment Spray Systems’’ (ADAMS Informed Technical Specifications Task 2014, as supplemented by letter dated
Accession No. ML072910759), as Force] Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3 February 19, 2015.
described in Revision 2 of Technical (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). Brief description of amendment: The
Specification Task Force-523, ‘‘Generic The Federal Register notice published amendment moved the Linear Heat
Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), Generation Rate (LHGR) and Single
Accumulation’’ (ADAMS Accession No. announced the availability of TSTF–
ML13053A075). Loop Operation LHGR limits from the
425, Revision 3. The amendments also Technical Requirements Manual to the
Date of issuance: July 20, 2015. include editorial changes to the TSs,
Effective date: As of the date of Technical Specifications (TSs).
administrative deviations from TSTF– Accordingly, the amendment added TS
issuance and shall be implemented 425, and other changes resulting from
within 120 days of issuance. 3.2.3, ‘‘Linear Heat Generation Rate
differences between the licensee’s TSs (LHGR),’’ and modified TS 1.1,
Amendment Nos.: 224 and 174. The and the TSs on which TSTF–425 was
amendments are in ADAMS under ‘‘Definitions’’; TS 3.4.1, ‘‘Recirculation
based.
Accession No. ML15182A160; Date of issuance: July 16, 2015. Loops Operating’’; TS 3.7.7, ‘‘The Main
documents related to these amendments Effective date: As of the date of Turbine Bypass System’’; and TS 5.6.5,
are listed in the Safety Evaluation issuance and shall be implemented ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).’’
enclosed with the amendments. within 90 days of issuance. Date of issuance: July 14, 2015.
Renewed Facility Operating License Amendment Nos.: 263 and 258. The
Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments Effective date: As of the date of
amendments are in ADAMS under
revised the TSs. Accession No. ML15166A320; issuance and shall be implemented
Date of initial notice in Federal documents related to these amendments within 60 days of issuance.
Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR are listed in the Safety Evaluation Amendment No.: 251. A publicly-
64225). The licensee’s supplement enclosed with the amendments. available version is in ADAMS under
dated June 30, 2015, did not expand the Renewed Facility Operating License Accession No. ML15168A171;
scope of the request and did not change Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments documents related to this amendment
the staff’s original proposed no revised the Facility Operating License are listed in the Safety Evaluation
significant hazards consideration and TSs. enclosed with the amendment.
determination as published in the Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: The NRC staff initially made Renewed Facility Operating License
Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation a proposed determination that the No. DPR–46: Amendment revised the
of the amendments is contained in a amendment request dated April 9, 2014, Facility Operating License and TSs.
Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2015. involved no significant hazards Date of initial notice in Federal
No significant hazards consideration consideration (NSHC) (July 22, 2014, 79 Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR
comments received: No. FR 44551). By letters dated August 29, 58820). The supplemental letter dated
2014, and February 20, 2015, the February 19, 2015, provided additional
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket licensee provided clarifying information
Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point information that clarified the
that did not expand the scope of the application, did not expand the scope of
Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, application and did not change the NRC
Miami-Dade County, Florida the application as originally noticed,
staff’s original proposed NSHC and did not change the staff’s original
Date of amendment request: April 9 determination, as published in the proposed no significant hazards
2014, as supplemented by letters dated Federal Register on July 22, 2014 (79 FR consideration determination as
August 29, 2014, and February 20, April 44551). Subsequently, by letter dated
published in the Federal Register.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3, and July 7, 2015. April 3, 2015, the licensee
Brief description of amendments: The supplemented its amendment request The Commission’s related evaluation
amendments revised the Technical with a proposed change that expanded of the amendment is contained in a
Specifications (TSs) by relocating the scope of the request. Therefore, the Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2015.
specific surveillance frequency NRC published a second proposed No significant hazards consideration
requirements to a licensee-controlled NSHC determination in the Federal comments received: No.
program with implementation of Register on May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27199),
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46494/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46357
notice of the proposed amendment was I. Introduction SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
published in The Herald-Palladium, COMMISSION
located in the City of St. Joseph, Berrien On July 29, 2015, the Postal Service
filed notice that it has entered into an [Release No. 34–75548; File No. SR–CBOE–
County, Michigan, on July 3 and July 4, 2015–070]
2015. The notice provided an additional Global Expedited Package
opportunity to submit comments on the Services 3 (GEPS 3) negotiated service Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Commission’s proposed NSHC agreement (Agreement).1 Chicago Board Options Exchange,
determination. No comments were To support its Notice, the Postal Incorporated; Notice of Filing and
received. Service filed a copy of the Agreement, Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
The Commission’s related evaluation a copy of the Governors’ Decision Rule Change Relating To Amending Its
of the amendment, finding of exigent authorizing the product, a certification Simple Auction Liaison (‘‘SAL’’) Rule
circumstances, State consultation, of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a),
public comments, and final NSHC July 29, 2015.
and an application for non-public Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
determination are contained in a Safety treatment of certain materials. It also
Evaluation dated July 10, 2015. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,1 and
filed supporting financial workpapers. Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is
Attorney for licensee: Robert B.
II. Notice of Commission Action hereby given that on July 24, 2015,
Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One
Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
The Commission establishes Docket Incorporated (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘CBOE’’)
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. filed with the Securities and Exchange
No. CP2015–116 for consideration of
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day matters raised by the Notice. Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
of July, 2015. proposed rule change as described in
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission invites comments on
Items I and II below, which Items have
George A. Wilson, Jr., whether the Postal Service’s filing is been prepared by the Exchange. The
Deputy Director, Division of Operating consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or Commission is publishing this notice to
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR solicit comments on the proposed rule
Regulation. part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due change from interested persons.
[FR Doc. 2015–18896 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] no later than August 6, 2015. The public
portions of the filing can be accessed via I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
the Commission’s Web site (http:// Statement of the Terms of Substance of
www.prc.gov). the Proposed Rule Change
The Commission appoints Lyudmila The Exchange is proposing to amend
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION its SAL rule to make it explicit that
Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public
6.13A(d) applies to Hybrid 3.0 classes.
Representative in this docket. The text of the proposed rule change
[Docket No. CP2015–116; Order No. 2625]
III. Ordering Paragraphs is available on the Exchange’s Web site
New Postal Product (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/
It is ordered: CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 1. The Commission establishes Docket the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary,
ACTION: Notice. No. CP2015–116 for consideration of the and at the Commission’s Public
matters raised by the Postal Service’s Reference Room.
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a Notice. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
recent Postal Service filing concerning
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Statement of the Purpose of, and
an additional Global Expedited Package
Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Services 3 negotiated service agreement.
to serve as an officer of the Commission Change
This notice informs the public of the
filing, invites public comment, and to represent the interests of the general In its filing with the Commission, the
takes other administrative steps. public in this proceeding (Public Exchange included statements
Representative). concerning the purpose of and basis for
DATES: Comments are due: August 6,
3. Comments are due no later than the proposed rule change and discussed
2015.
any comments it received on the
August 6, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments proposed rule change. The text of these
electronically via the Commission’s 4. The Secretary shall arrange for statements may be examined at the
Filing Online system at http:// publication of this order in the Federal places specified in Item IV below. The
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit Register. Exchange has prepared summaries, set
comments electronically should contact By the Commission. forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER Shoshana M. Grove,
the most significant aspects of such
INFORMATION CONTACT section by statements.
telephone for advice on filing Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–19085 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
alternatives.
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
Statement of the Purpose of, and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at Change
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
202–789–6820.
1. Purpose
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing The Exchange is proposing to amend
Table of Contents a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited language to clarify that certain
I. Introduction Package Services 3 Negotiated Service Agreement
II. Notice of Commission Action and Application for Non-Public Treatment of 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
III. Ordering Paragraphs Materials Filed Under Seal, July 29, 2015 (Notice). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46494/page/13.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-18 14:51:22
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 14:51:22
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Biweekly notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be filed by September 30, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 5, 2015. | |
| Contact | Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927 email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 46345 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR