80 FR 52801 - 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 169 (September 1, 2015)

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 August 6, 2015, to August 17, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on August 14, 2015.

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52801-52809]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21432]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0204]


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 August 6, 2015, to August 17, 2015. The last 
biweekly notice was published on August 14, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed October 1, 2015. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by November 2, 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-2015-0204. 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: Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0204 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-2015-0204.
     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.

[[Page 52802]]

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0204, facility name, unit 
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the 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

[[Page 52803]]

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 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 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 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
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

[[Page 52804]]

that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors 
in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: May 8, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15134A244.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to enable the use of Dominion nuclear 
safety and reload core design methods for MPS3 and address the issues 
identified in three Westinghouse communication documents. The amendment 
would also update approved reference methodologies in TS 6.9.1.6.b.
    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 any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Dominion analysis methods do not make any contribution to 
the potential accident initiators and thus do not increase the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The use of the 
approved Dominion analysis methods will not increase the probability 
of an accident because plant systems, structures, and components 
(SSC) will not be affected or operated in a different manner, and 
system interfaces will not change.
    Since the applicable safety analysis and nuclear core design 
acceptance criteria will be satisfied when the Dominion analysis 
methods are applied to MPS3, the use of the approved Dominion 
analysis methods does not increase the potential consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated. The use of the approved Dominion 
methods will not result in a significant impact on normal operating 
plant releases, and will not increase the predicted radiological 
consequences of postulated accidents described in the FSAR [final 
safety analysis report]. The proposed resolution of Westinghouse 
notification documents NSAL-09-5, Rev. 1, 06-1C-03 and NSAL-15-1 is 
intended to address deficiencies identified within the existing MPS3 
Technical Specifications to return them to their as designed 
function and does not result in actions that would increase the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed [amendment] create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The use of Dominion analysis methods and the Dominion 
statistical design limit (SDL) for fuel departure from nucleate 
boiling ratio (DNBR) and fuel critical heat flux (CHF) does not 
impact any of the applicable core design criteria. All pertinent 
licensing basis limits and acceptance criteria will continue to be 
met. Demonstrated adherence to these limits and acceptance criteria 
precludes new challenges to SSCs that might introduce a new type of 
accident. All design and performance criteria will continue to be 
met and no new single failure mechanisms will be created. The use of 
the Dominion methods does not involve any alteration to plant 
equipment or procedures that might introduce any new or unique 
operational modes or accident precursors. The proposed resolution of 
Westinghouse notification documents NSAL-09-5, Rev. 1, 06-IC-03 and 
NSAL-15-1 does not involve the alteration of plant equipment or 
introduce unique operational modes or accident precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create [the 
possibility of] a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Nuclear core design and safety analysis acceptance criteria will 
continue to be satisfied with the application of Dominion methods. 
Meeting the analysis acceptance criteria and limits ensure that the 
margin of safety is not significantly reduced. Nuclear core design 
and safety analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be 
satisfied with the application of Dominion methods. In particular, 
use of [the model] VIPRE-D with the proposed safety limits provides 
at least a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level that DNBR will 
not occur (the 95/95 DNBR criterion). The required DNBR margin of 
safety for MPS3, which is the margin between the 95/95 DNBR 
criterion and clad failure, is therefore not reduced. The proposed 
resolution of Westinghouse notification documents NSAL-09-5, Rev. 1, 
06-IC-03 and NSAL-15-1 does not propose actions that would result in 
a significant reduction in margin to safety.
    Therefore, 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin Beasley.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 12, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15168A009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify Technical Specification Table 3.4.1-1. Specifically, the 
proposed change would modify the minimum required Reactor Coolant 
System total flow rates for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The reduction in Catawba Unit 1 Reactor Coolant System (RCS) 
minimum measured flow from 388,000 gpm to 384,000 gpm and the 
reduction in Catawba Unit 2 RCS minimum measured flow from 390,000 
gpm to 387,000 gpm will not change the probability of actuation of 
any Engineered Safeguard Feature or any other device. The 
consequences of previously analyzed accidents have been found to be 
insignificantly different when these reduced flow rates are assumed. 
The system transient response is not affected by the initial RCS 
flow assumption unless the initial assumption is so low as to impair 
the steady state core cooling capability or the steam generator heat 
transfer capability. This is clearly not the case with the small 
proposed reductions in RCS flow. The proposed changes will not 
result in the modification of any system interface that would 
increase the likelihood of an accident since these events are 
independent of the proposed changes. The proposed amendments will 
not change, degrade, or prevent actions or alter any assumptions 
previously made in evaluating the radiological consequences of an 
accident described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR).
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in the increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of

[[Page 52805]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    These changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of NRC 
approval of this amendment request. No changes are being made to the 
facility which would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. 
This amendment request does not impact any plant systems that are 
accident initiators.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Implementation of these amendments would not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The decreases in 
Catawba Unit 1 and Unit 2 RCS minimum measured flow have been 
analyzed and found to have an insignificant effect on the applicable 
transient analyses as described in the UFSAR. Margin of safety is 
related to the confidence of the fission product barriers being able 
to perform their accident mitigating functions. These fission 
product barriers include the fuel cladding, the RCS, and the 
containment. The proposed amendments will have no impact upon the 
ability of these barriers to function as designed. Consequently, no 
safety margins will be impacted.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3 (WF3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: June 17, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15170A121.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the WF3 technical specifications (TSs) by relocating specific 
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled 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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which 
is presented below:

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

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

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3 (WF3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15182A152.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment changes the WF3 
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full 
implementation date and proposes a revision to the existing Physical 
Protection license condition.
    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

[[Page 52806]]

in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of 
the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In 
addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the 
CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken 
which provide adequate protection during this period of time. 
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result 
of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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 16, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15119A222.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications related to the boric acid tank (BAT) to 
reflect a correction to the instrument uncertainty calculation.
    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.
    Revising the minimum acceptable BAT volume curves for one and 
two unit operation will not increase the probability of occurrence 
of an accident. The proposed revision to Figure 3.1-2 corrects the 
errors identified in the uncertainty calculation for one and two 
unit operation. Revising the minimum acceptable BAT volume curves 
provide better assurance that the BATs will continue to perform 
their required function, thereby ensuring the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated are not increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not install any new or different 
equipment or modify equipment in the plant. The proposed change will 
not alter the operation or function of structures, systems or 
components. The response of the plant and the operators following a 
design basis accident is unaffected by this change. The proposed 
change does not introduce any new failure modes and the design basis 
of the BATs is maintained at the revised minimum volumes.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in-
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change corrects the uncertainty related to BAT 
volume measurement. The proposed minimum acceptable BAT volume 
curves for one unit and two unit operation will provide better 
assurance that adequate shutdown margin is available for any post 
shutdown time. The limits used in the safety analysis are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change 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: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 6, 2015. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15188A275.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 
The requested amendment proposes to modify the existing feedwater 
controller logic to allow the controller program to respond as required 
to various plant transients while minimizing the potential for false 
actuation. Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 
1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control 
Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the 
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 
52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will modify the control logic for actuation 
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their defense-in-
depth function of core decay heat removal. The instrumentation used 
for actuation of the SFW pumps in their defense-in-depth function 
are not initiators of any accident. The proposed control logic uses 
different instrument tag numbers than the current design. The 
instruments used for the actuation of this function exist as a part 
of the current design; therefore this proposed change does not 
require any additional instrumentation. These instruments, to be 
included as part of the Design Reliability Assurance Program (D-
RAP), will be held to the same enhanced quality assurance (QA) 
requirements as the current instruments and therefore neither 
safety, performance, nor reliance will be reduced as a part of this 
change.
    Additionally, the proposed changes do not adversely affect any 
accident initiating event or component failure, thus accidents 
previously evaluated are not adversely affected. In the event of 
loss of offsite power that results in a loss of main feedwater (MFW) 
supply, the SFW pumps automatically supply feedwater to the steam 
generators to cool down the reactor under emergency shutdown 
conditions. The standby source motor control center circuit powers 
each of the two SFW pumps and their

[[Page 52807]]

associated instruments and valves. The pump discharge isolation 
valves are motor-operated and are normally closed and interlocked 
with the SFW pumps. In the event of loss of offsite power, the 
onsite standby power supply diesel generators will power the SFW 
pumps. If both the normal [alternating current] ac power and the 
onsite standby ac power are unavailable, these valves will fail 
``as-is.'' The pump suction header isolation valves are 
pneumatically actuated. The main and startup feedwater system (FWS) 
also has temperature instrumentation in the pump discharge that 
would permit monitoring of the SFW temperature. This proposed change 
therefore has no impact on the ability of the AP1000 plant to cool 
down under emergency shutdown conditions or during a loss of offsite 
power event.
    No function used to mitigate a radioactive material release and 
no radioactive material release source term is involved, thus the 
radiological releases in the accident analyses are not adversely 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will modify the control logic for actuation 
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their defense-in-
depth function of core decay heat removal. The instrumentation used 
for actuation of the SFW pumps in their defense-in-depth function 
are not initiators of any accident. The proposed control logic uses 
different instrument tag numbers than the current design. However, 
the instruments used for the actuation of this function already 
exist as a part of the current design and so this change does not 
require any additional instrumentation. These instruments, to be 
included as part of the D-RAP, will be held to the same enhanced QA 
requirements as the current instruments and so neither safety, 
performance, nor reliance will be reduced as a part of this change. 
Furthermore, since the D-RAP ensures consistency with the 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), the changes do not impact the 
PRA. The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode, 
fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive 
material release. The proposed change does not alter the design, 
configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard 
functional capabilities of the equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will modify the control logic for actuation 
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their defense-in-
depth function of core decay heat removal. These changes will have 
no negative impacts on the safety margin associated with the design 
functions of the SFW pumps. The proposed logic changes will only 
resolve the current conditions associated with undesired start up 
signals for the SFW pumps. The changes set forth in this amendment 
correct the actuation logic of the SFW pumps, so that the feedwater 
controller logic is now aligned with the guidance provided in the 
Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document (ALWR 
URD). In addition, the operation of the startup feedwater system 
function is not credited to mitigate a design-basis accident. Since 
there is no change to an existing design basis limit/criterion, 
design function, or regulatory criterion no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: July 23, 2015, as supplemented by letter 
dated July 28, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML15204A843 and ML15209A960, respectively.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would modify the technical specifications to allow for the temporary 
connection of the borated water storage tank to non-seismic piping for 
cleanup and recirculation to support activities associated with the 
TMI-1 Fall 2015 Refueling Outage and Fuel Cycle 21 operation.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
August 7, 2015 (80 FR 47529).
    Expiration date of individual notice: September 8, 2015 (public 
comments); October 6, 2015 (hearing requests).

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

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

[[Page 52808]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: May 1, 2014, as supplemented by letters 
dated May 1, 2015, and July 30, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to require that changes to specific 
surveillance frequencies will be made in accordance with Nuclear Energy 
Institute 04-10, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications 
Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance 
Frequencies.'' The change is the adoption of NRC-approved Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications 
Change Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance 
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 
5b.''
    Date of issuance: August 17, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 314 and 292. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15211A005; 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: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 
42549). The supplemental letters dated May 1, 2015, and July 30, 2015, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 
1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: December 19, 2013, as 
supplemented by letter dated June 29, 2015.
    Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specifications Section 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits 
Report (COLR),'' to add an NRC approved topical report reference to the 
list of analytical methods that are used to determine the core 
operating limits. Specifically, the proposed change adds a reference to 
Westinghouse topical report WCAP-16865-P-A, ``Westinghouse BWR ECCS 
[Boiling-Water Reactor Emergency Core Cooling System] Evaluation Model 
Updates: Supplement 4 to Code Description, Qualification and 
Application.''
    Date of issuance: August 5, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 247, 240, 260 and 255. A publicly-available version 
is in ADAMS under Accession No, ML15183A351; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and 
DPR-30. The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38577). The June 29, 2015, supplement contained clarifying information 
and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no 
significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-278, 
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, York and Lancaster Counties, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: May 29, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed a license 
condition pertaining to the submittal of a report containing revised 
analysis for the replacement steam dryer. Specifically, the amendment 
reduced the length of time for the submittal of the report from 90 days 
prior to the start of the extended power uprate (EPU) outage to 30 days 
prior to the start of the EPU outage.
    Date of issuance: August 11, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 21 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 305. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15189A185; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-56: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 10, 2015 (80 FR 
32991).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 24, 2014, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 12, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the battery 
capacity testing surveillance requirements in the technical 
specifications to reflect test requirements when the battery is near 
end of life.
    Date of issuance: August 17, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 170. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15201A529; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 
13907). The supplemental letter dated May 12, 2015, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 8, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/

[[Page 52809]]

4.4.7, ``Chemistry,'' which provides limits on the oxygen, chloride, 
and fluoride content in the reactor coolant system to minimize 
corrosion. The amendments require the licensee to relocate the 
requirements to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to be 
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and 
experiments.''
    Date of issuance: August 14, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 225 and 175. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15161A442; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) 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 Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in an SE dated August 14, 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 application for amendments: August 29, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/4.4.7, ``Chemistry,'' 
which provides limits on the oxygen, chloride, and fluoride content in 
the reactor coolant system to minimize corrosion. The amendments 
require the licensee to relocate the requirements to the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report and related procedures to be controlled in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments.''
    Date of issuance: August 14, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 265 and 260. The amendments are in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15205A174; 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 TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 
FR 70216).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 16, 2014, as supplemented by letters 
dated January 9, March 27, and July 2, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Updated 
Safety Analysis Report to allow pipe stress analysis of non-reactor 
coolant system safety-related piping to be performed in accordance with 
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
Code, Section III, 1980 Edition (no Addenda) as an alternative to the 
current Code of Record (i.e., United States of America Standards B31.7, 
1968 (DRAFT) Edition).
    Date of issuance: August 10, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 283. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15209A802; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the licensing basis as described in the Updated Safety Analysis 
Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 
38593). The supplemental letters dated January 9, March 27, and July 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 August 10, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cyber 
Security Plan for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 to illustrate the 
``Bright-Line'' between the critical digital assets that in the scope 
of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Cyber Security Plan and those 
that are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
    Date of issuance: August 7, 2015.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 101. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML15177A334; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 1, 2015 (80 FR 
31076).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2015.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of August, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-21432 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P