80_FR_52970 80 FR 52801 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

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)

Page Range52801-52809
FR Document2015-21432

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 Issue 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices 52801 technical assistance to enhance the for enhanced information sharing and method for submitting comments on a enforcement efforts of foreign access, including the identification of specific subject): governments through: relevant data sets, and how best to • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Æ Minimizing the duplication of U.S. improve open access to such data. http://www.regulations.gov and search Government training and assistance In conclusion, IPEC invites comments for Docket ID NRC–2015–0204. Address efforts; from the public on the issues identified questions about NRC dockets to Carol Æ Prioritizing deployment of U.S. above, as well as any other comments Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; Government resources to those that the public may have, for improving email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For countries where programs can be carried the efficiency and effectiveness of technical questions, contact the out most effectively with the greatest intellectual property enforcement—as individual listed in the FOR FURTHER impact on reducing the number of well as the innovation and economic INFORMATION CONTACT section of this infringing products imported into the development it supports—through the document. United States, while also protecting the upcoming Joint Strategic Plan for 2016– • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, intellectual property rights of U.S. rights 2019. Office of Administration, Mail Stop: holders and the interests of U.S. persons OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear Dated: August 21, 2015. otherwise harmed by infringements in Regulatory Commission, Washington, other countries. Daniel H. Marti, United States Intellectual Property DC 20555–0001. To assist IPEC and the agencies in Enforcement Coordinator, Executive Office of For additional direction on obtaining developing the Joint Strategic Plan for 2016–2019, IPEC requests input and the President. information and submitting comments, recommendations from the public for [FR Doc. 2015–21289 Filed 8–31–15; 8:45 am] see ‘‘Obtaining Information and improving the U.S. Government’s BILLING CODE P Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of intellectual property enforcement efforts. IPEC welcomes information this document. pertaining to, and to the extent FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NUCLEAR REGULATORY practicable, recommendations for COMMISSION Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear combating emerging or potential future Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear threats posed by violations of [NRC–2015–0204] Regulatory Commission, Washington, intellectual property rights, including DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– threats to both public health and safety Biweekly Notice; Applications and 3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov. (in the U.S. and internationally) and Amendments to Facility Operating SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: American innovation and economic Licenses and Combined Licenses competitiveness. Recommendations Involving No Significant Hazards I. Obtaining Information and may include, but need not be limited to: Considerations Submitting Comments legislation, executive order, Presidential AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory A. Obtaining Information memorandum, regulation, guidance, or Commission. other executive action (e.g., changes to Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– agency policies, practices or methods), ACTION: Biweekly notice. 0204 when contacting the NRC about as well as ideas for improving any of the the availability of information for this SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) action. You may obtain publicly- existing voluntary private-sector of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as initiatives and for establishing new available information related to this amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear action by any of the following methods: voluntary private-sector initiatives. Regulatory Commission (NRC) is Finally, in an effort to aid the • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to publishing this regular biweekly notice. http://www.regulations.gov and search development and implementation of The Act requires the Commission to for Docket ID NRC–2015–0204. well-defined policy decisions, to publish notice of any amendments • NRC’s Agencywide Documents advance scholarly inquiry, and to issued, or proposed to be issued and Access and Management System bolster transparency and accountability grants the Commission the authority to (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- on intellectual property enforcement efforts, IPEC encourages enhanced issue and make immediately effective available documents online in the public access to appropriately any amendment to an operating license ADAMS Public Documents collection at generalized information, trend analyses, or combined license, as applicable, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ and case studies related to IP-infringing upon a determination by the adams.html. To begin the search, select activities. Both governmental and Commission that such amendment ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then private entities may be in possession of involves no significant hazards select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS a wide range of data and other consideration, notwithstanding the Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, information that would enable pendency before the Commission of a please contact the NRC’s Public researchers, rights holders, industry-at- request for a hearing from any person. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at large, public interests groups, policy This biweekly notice includes all 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by makers and others to better gauge the notices of amendments issued, or email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The specific nature of the challenges; proposed to be issued from August 6, ADAMS accession number for each develop recommendations for well- 2015, to August 17, 2015. The last document referenced (if it is available in biweekly notice was published on mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES balanced strategies to effectively and ADAMS) is provided the first time that efficiently address those challenges; and August 14, 2015. it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY measure the effectiveness of strategies DATES: Comments must be filed October INFORMATION section. that have been or will be adopted and 1, 2015. A request for a hearing must be • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and implemented. To further the objective of filed by November 2, 2015. purchase copies of public documents at supporting transparency, accountability, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One and data-driven governance, IPEC by any of the following methods (unless White Flint North, 11555 Rockville requests identification of possible areas this document describes a different Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1

52802 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices B. Submitting Comments day period provided that its final following general requirements: (1) The Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– determination is that the amendment name, address, and telephone number of 0204, facility name, unit number(s), involves no significant hazards the requestor or petitioner; (2) the application date, and subject in your consideration. In addition, the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s comment submission. Commission may issue the amendment right under the Act to be made a party The NRC cautions you not to include prior to the expiration of the 30-day to the proceeding; (3) the nature and identifying or contact information that comment period should circumstances extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s you do not want to be publicly change during the 30-day comment property, financial, or other interest in disclosed in your comment submission. period such that failure to act in a the proceeding; and (4) the possible timely way would result, for example in effect of any decision or order which The NRC posts all comment derating or shutdown of the facility. may be entered in the proceeding on the submissions at http:// Should the Commission take action requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The www.regulations.gov as well as entering prior to the expiration of either the petition must also identify the specific the comment submissions into ADAMS. comment period or the notice period, it contentions which the requestor/ The NRC does not routinely edit will publish in the Federal Register a petitioner seeks to have litigated at the comment submissions to remove notice of issuance. Should the proceeding. identifying or contact information. Each contention must consist of a Commission make a final No Significant If you are requesting or aggregating specific statement of the issue of law or Hazards Consideration Determination, comments from other persons for fact to be raised or controverted. In any hearing will take place after submission to the NRC, then you should addition, the requestor/petitioner shall issuance. The Commission expects that inform those persons not to include provide a brief explanation of the bases the need to take this action will occur identifying or contact information that very infrequently. for the contention and a concise they do not want to be publicly statement of the alleged facts or expert disclosed in their comment submission. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing opinion which support the contention Your request should state that the NRC and Petition for Leave To Intervene and on which the requestor/petitioner does not routinely edit comment Within 60 days after the date of intends to rely in proving the contention submissions to remove such information publication of this notice, any person(s) at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner before making the comment whose interest may be affected by this must also provide references to those submissions available to the public or action may file a request for a hearing specific sources and documents of entering the comment submissions into and a petition to intervene with respect which the petitioner is aware and on ADAMS. to issuance of the amendment to the which the requestor/petitioner intends II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance subject facility operating license or to rely to establish those facts or expert of Amendments to Facility Operating combined license. Requests for a opinion. The petition must include Licenses and Combined Licenses and hearing and a petition for leave to sufficient information to show that a Proposed No Significant Hazards intervene shall be filed in accordance genuine dispute exists with the Consideration Determination with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules applicant on a material issue of law or of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR fact. Contentions shall be limited to The Commission has made a part 2. Interested person(s) should matters within the scope of the proposed determination that the consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, amendment under consideration. The following amendment requests involve which is available at the NRC’s PDR, contention must be one which, if no significant hazards consideration. located at One White Flint North, Room proven, would entitle the requestor/ Under the Commission’s regulations in O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first petitioner to relief. A requestor/ § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The petitioner who fails to satisfy these Regulations (10 CFR), this means that NRC’s regulations are accessible requirements with respect to at least one operation of the facility in accordance electronically from the NRC Library on contention will not be permitted to with the proposed amendment would the NRC’s Web site at http:// participate as a party. not (1) involve a significant increase in www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- Those permitted to intervene become the probability or consequences of an collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing parties to the proceeding, subject to any accident previously evaluated, or (2) or petition for leave to intervene is filed limitations in the order granting leave to create the possibility of a new or by the above date, the Commission or a intervene, and have the opportunity to different kind of accident from any presiding officer designated by the participate fully in the conduct of the accident previously evaluated; or (3) Commission or by the Chief hearing. involve a significant reduction in a Administrative Judge of the Atomic If a hearing is requested, the margin of safety. The basis for this Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will Commission will make a final proposed determination for each rule on the request and/or petition; and determination on the issue of no amendment request is shown below. the Secretary or the Chief significant hazards consideration. The The Commission is seeking public Administrative Judge of the Atomic final determination will serve to decide comments on this proposed Safety and Licensing Board will issue a when the hearing is held. If the final determination. Any comments received notice of a hearing or an appropriate determination is that the amendment within 30 days after the date of order. request involves no significant hazards publication of this notice will be As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a consideration, the Commission may mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES considered in making any final petition for leave to intervene shall set issue the amendment and make it determination. forth with particularity the interest of immediately effective, notwithstanding Normally, the Commission will not the petitioner in the proceeding, and the request for a hearing. Any hearing issue the amendment until the how that interest may be affected by the held would take place after issuance of expiration of 60 days after the date of results of the proceeding. The petition the amendment. If the final publication of this notice. The should specifically explain the reasons determination is that the amendment Commission may issue the license why intervention should be permitted request involves a significant hazards amendment before expiration of the 60- with particular reference to the consideration, then any hearing held VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices 52803 would take place before the issuance of System Help Desk will not be able to Participants who believe that they any amendment unless the Commission offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting finds an imminent danger to the health software. documents electronically must file an or safety of the public, in which case it If a participant is electronically exemption request, in accordance with will issue an appropriate order or rule submitting a document to the NRC in 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper under 10 CFR part 2. accordance with the E-Filing rule, the filing requesting authorization to participant must file the document continue to submit documents in paper B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) using the NRC’s online, Web-based format. Such filings must be submitted All documents filed in NRC submission form. In order to serve by: (1) First class mail addressed to the adjudicatory proceedings, including a documents through the Electronic Office of the Secretary of the request for hearing, a petition for leave Information Exchange System, users Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory to intervene, any motion or other will be required to install a Web Commission, Washington, DC 20555– document filed in the proceeding prior browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and to the submission of a request for site. Further information on the Web- Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, hearing or petition to intervene, and based submission form, including the express mail, or expedited delivery documents filed by interested installation of the Web browser plug-in, service to the Office of the Secretary, governmental entities participating is available on the NRC’s public Web Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule submittals.html. Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- Once a participant has obtained a and Adjudications Staff. Participants Filing process requires participants to digital ID certificate and a docket has filing a document in this manner are submit and serve all adjudicatory been created, the participant can then responsible for serving the document on documents over the internet, or in some submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is cases to mail copies on electronic for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail storage media. Participants may not should be in Portable Document Format as of the time of deposit in the mail, or submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRC’s public Web site delivery service upon depositing the accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic or party to use E-Filing if the presiding participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing officer subsequently determines that the the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern reason for granting the exemption from hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of use of E-Filing no longer exists. at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system Documents submitted in adjudicatory identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends proceedings will appear in the NRC’s allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice electronic hearing docket which is representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The available to the public at http:// documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the pursuant to an order of the Commission, participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRC’s Office of the or the presiding officer. Participants are Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who requested not to include personal submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary privacy information, such as social hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the security numbers, home addresses, or participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not home phone numbers in their filings, representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those unless an NRC regulation or other law issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore, requires submission of such this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or information. However, in some establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must instances, a request to intervene will hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID require including information on local Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/ residence in order to demonstrate a electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they proximity assertion of interest in the Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via proceeding. With respect to copyrighted digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system. works, except for limited excerpts that NRC’s public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using serve the purpose of the adjudicatory www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system filings and would constitute a Fair Use getting-started.html. System may seek assistance by contacting the application, participants are requested requirements for accessing the E- NRC Meta System Help Desk through not to include copyrighted materials in Submittal server are detailed in the the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the their submission. NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic NRC’s public Web site at http:// Petitions for leave to intervene must mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Submission,’’ which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- be filed no later than 60 days from the agency’s public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to date of publication of this notice. www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- Requests for hearing, petitions for leave submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC to intervene, and motions for leave to attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available file new or amended contentions that on the Web site, but should note that the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern are filed after the 60-day deadline will NRC’s E-Filing system does not support Time, Monday through Friday, not be entertained absent a unlisted software, and the NRC Meta excluding government holidays. determination by the presiding officer VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1

52804 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices that the filing demonstrates good cause within the existing MPS3 Technical proposes to determine that the by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR Specifications to return them to their as amendment request involves no 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). designed function and does not result in significant hazards consideration. For further details with respect to actions that would increase the probability of Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. any accident previously evaluated. these license amendment applications, Therefore, the proposed amendment does Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion see the application for amendment not involve a significant increase in the Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar which is available for public inspection probability or the consequences of any Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For accident previously evaluated. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin Beasley. additional direction on accessing 2. Does the proposed [amendment] create the possibility of a new or different kind of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket information related to this document, accident from any previously evaluated? Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Response: No. Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York Submitting Comments’’ section of this The use of Dominion analysis methods and County, South Carolina document. the Dominion statistical design limit (SDL) for fuel departure from nucleate boiling ratio Date of amendment request: June 12, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 2015. A publicly-available version is in Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power (DNBR) and fuel critical heat flux (CHF) does not impact any of the applicable core design ADAMS under Accession No. Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London ML15168A009. criteria. All pertinent licensing basis limits County, Connecticut Description of amendment request: and acceptance criteria will continue to be Date of amendment request: May 8, met. Demonstrated adherence to these limits The proposed amendments would 2015. A publicly-available version is in and acceptance criteria precludes new modify Technical Specification Table ADAMS under Accession No. challenges to SSCs that might introduce a 3.4.1–1. Specifically, the proposed ML15134A244. new type of accident. All design and change would modify the minimum Description of amendment request: performance criteria will continue to be met and no new single failure mechanisms will required Reactor Coolant System total The amendment would revise the flow rates for Catawba Nuclear Station, be created. The use of the Dominion methods Technical Specifications (TSs) to enable does not involve any alteration to plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2. the use of Dominion nuclear safety and equipment or procedures that might Basis for proposed no significant reload core design methods for MPS3 introduce any new or unique operational hazards consideration determination: and address the issues identified in modes or accident precursors. The proposed As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the three Westinghouse communication resolution of Westinghouse notification licensee has provided its analysis of the documents. The amendment would also documents NSAL–09–5, Rev. 1, 06–IC–03 issue of no significant hazards update approved reference and NSAL–15–1 does not involve the consideration, which is presented methodologies in TS 6.9.1.6.b. alteration of plant equipment or introduce below: Basis for proposed no significant unique operational modes or accident precursors. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve hazards consideration determination: a significant increase in the probability or Therefore, the proposed amendment does As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the not create [the possibility of] a new or consequences of an accident previously licensee has provided its analysis of the different kind of accident from any accident evaluated? issue of no significant hazards previously evaluated. Response: No. consideration, which is presented 3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve The reduction in Catawba Unit 1 Reactor below: a significant reduction in the margin of Coolant System (RCS) minimum measured safety? flow from 388,000 gpm to 384,000 gpm and 1. Does the proposed [amendment] involve Response: No. the reduction in Catawba Unit 2 RCS a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously Nuclear core design and safety analysis minimum measured flow from 390,000 gpm evaluated? acceptance criteria will continue to be to 387,000 gpm will not change the Response: No. satisfied with the application of Dominion probability of actuation of any Engineered The Dominion analysis methods do not methods. Meeting the analysis acceptance Safeguard Feature or any other device. The make any contribution to the potential criteria and limits ensure that the margin of consequences of previously analyzed accident initiators and thus do not increase safety is not significantly reduced. Nuclear accidents have been found to be the probability of any accident previously core design and safety analysis acceptance insignificantly different when these reduced evaluated. The use of the approved Dominion criteria will continue to be satisfied with the flow rates are assumed. The system transient analysis methods will not increase the application of Dominion methods. In response is not affected by the initial RCS probability of an accident because plant particular, use of [the model] VIPRE–D with flow assumption unless the initial systems, structures, and components (SSC) the proposed safety limits provides at least a assumption is so low as to impair the steady will not be affected or operated in a different 95% probability at a 95% confidence level state core cooling capability or the steam manner, and system interfaces will not that DNBR will not occur (the 95/95 DNBR generator heat transfer capability. This is change. criterion). The required DNBR margin of clearly not the case with the small proposed Since the applicable safety analysis and safety for MPS3, which is the margin reductions in RCS flow. The proposed nuclear core design acceptance criteria will between the 95/95 DNBR criterion and clad changes will not result in the modification of be satisfied when the Dominion analysis failure, is therefore not reduced. The any system interface that would increase the methods are applied to MPS3, the use of the proposed resolution of Westinghouse likelihood of an accident since these events approved Dominion analysis methods does notification documents NSAL–09–5, Rev. 1, are independent of the proposed changes. not increase the potential consequences of 06–IC–03 and NSAL–15–1 does not propose The proposed amendments will not change, any accident previously evaluated. The use actions that would result in a significant degrade, or prevent actions or alter any of the approved Dominion methods will not reduction in margin to safety. assumptions previously made in evaluating Therefore, the proposed amendment does the radiological consequences of an accident mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES result in a significant impact on normal operating plant releases, and will not not involve a significant reduction in [the] described in the Updated Final Safety increase the predicted radiological margin of safety. Analysis Report (UFSAR). consequences of postulated accidents Therefore, the proposed amendments do described in the FSAR [final safety analysis The NRC staff has reviewed the not result in the increase in the probability report]. The proposed resolution of licensee’s analysis and, based on this or consequences of an accident previously Westinghouse notification documents NSAL– review, it appears that the three evaluated. 09–5, Rev. 1, 06–1C–03 and NSAL–15–1 is standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 2. Does the proposed amendment create intended to address deficiencies identified satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the possibility of a new or different kind of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices 52805 accident from any accident previously 1. Does the proposed change involve a Therefore, the proposed changes do not evaluated? significant increase in the probability or involve a significant reduction in a margin of Response: No. consequences of any accident previously safety. These changes do not create the possibility evaluated? of a new or different kind of accident from The NRC staff has reviewed the Response: No. any accident previously evaluated. No new The proposed change relocates the licensee’s analysis and, based on this accident causal mechanisms are created as a specified frequencies for periodic review, it appears that the three result of NRC approval of this amendment surveillance requirements to licensee control standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are request. No changes are being made to the under a new Surveillance Frequency Control satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff facility which would introduce any new Program [SFCP]. Surveillance frequencies are proposes to determine that the accident causal mechanisms. This not an initiator to any accident previously amendment request involves no amendment request does not impact any evaluated. As a result, the probability of any significant hazards consideration. plant systems that are accident initiators. accident previously evaluated is not Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve significantly increased. The systems and a significant reduction in the margin of Aluise, Associate General Counsel— components required by the technical safety? Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 specifications for which the surveillance Response: No. frequencies are relocated are still required to Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana Implementation of these amendments be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for 70113. would not involve a significant reduction in the surveillance requirements, and be NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. the margin of safety. The decreases in capable of performing any mitigation Catawba Unit 1 and Unit 2 RCS minimum Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– function assumed in the accident analysis. measured flow have been analyzed and 382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, As a result, the consequences of any accident found to have an insignificant effect on the previously evaluated are not significantly Unit 3 (WF3), St. Charles Parish, applicable transient analyses as described in increased. Louisiana the UFSAR. Margin of safety is related to the Therefore, the proposed change does not Date of amendment request: June 29, confidence of the fission product barriers involve a significant increase in the being able to perform their accident 2015. A publicly-available version is in probability or consequences of an accident ADAMS under Accession No. mitigating functions. These fission product previously evaluated. barriers include the fuel cladding, the RCS, ML15182A152. 2. Does the proposed change create the and the containment. The proposed possibility of a new or different kind of Description of amendment request: amendments will have no impact upon the accident from any previously evaluated? The amendment changes the WF3 Cyber ability of these barriers to function as Response: No. Security Plan (CSP) Implementation designed. Consequently, no safety margins No new or different accidents result from Schedule Milestone 8 full will be impacted. utilizing the proposed change. The changes implementation date and proposes a The NRC staff has reviewed the do not involve a physical alteration of the revision to the existing Physical licensee’s analysis and, based on this plant (i.e., no new or different type of Protection license condition. equipment will be installed) or a change in Basis for proposed no significant review, it appears that the three the methods governing normal plant hazards consideration determination: standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are operation. In addition, the changes do not satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the impose any new or different requirements. proposes to determine that the The changes do not alter assumptions made licensee has provided its analysis of the amendment request involves no in the safety analysis. The proposed changes issue of no significant hazards significant hazards consideration. are consistent with the safety analysis consideration, which is presented Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, assumptions and current plant operating below: Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy practice. 1. Does the proposed change involve a Corporation, 526 South Church Street— Therefore, the proposed change does not significant increase in the probability or EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. create the possibility of a new or different consequences of an accident previously kind of accident from any accident evaluated? NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. previously evaluated. Pascarelli. Response: No. 3. Does the proposed change involve a The proposed change to the CSP Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– significant reduction in the margin of safety? Implementation Schedule is administrative 382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Response: No. in nature. This change does not alter accident The design, operation, testing methods, analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or Unit 3 (WF3), St. Charles Parish, and acceptance criteria for systems, affect the function of plant systems or the Louisiana structures, and components (SSCs), specified manner in which systems are operated, Date of amendment request: June 17, in applicable codes and standards (or maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 2015. A publicly-available version is in alternatives approved for use by the NRC) The proposed change does not require any ADAMS under Accession No. will continue to be met as described in the plant modifications which affect the plant licensing basis (including the final performance capability of the structures, ML15170A121. safety analysis report and bases to TS), since systems, and components relied upon to Description of amendment request: these are not affected by changes to the mitigate the consequences of postulated The proposed amendment would surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is accidents and has no impact on the modify the WF3 technical specifications no impact to safety analysis acceptance probability or consequences of an accident (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance criteria as described in the plant licensing previously evaluated. frequencies to a licensee-controlled basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated Therefore, the proposed change does not program. surveillance frequency, Entergy will perform involve a significant increase in the a probabilistic risk evaluation using the probability or consequences of an accident mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: guidance contained in NRC approved NEI previously evaluated. [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04–10, Rev. 1, in 2. Does the proposed change create the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04–10, possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluated? consideration, with NRC staff revisions evaluating the risk increase of proposed Response: No. provided in [brackets], which is changes to surveillance frequencies The proposed change to the CSP presented below: consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177. Implementation Schedule is administrative VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1

52806 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices in nature. This proposed change does not issue of no significant hazards South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, alter accident analysis assumptions, add any consideration, which is presented Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil initiators, or affect the function of plant below: C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), systems or the manner in which systems are Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 1. Does the proposed change involve a inspected. The proposed change does not significant increase in the probability or Carolina require any plant modifications which affect consequences of an accident previously Date of amendment request: July 6, the performance capability of the structures, evaluated? 2015. A publicly-available version is in systems, and components relied upon to Response: No. Revising the minimum acceptable BAT ADAMS under Accession No. mitigate the consequences of postulated ML15188A275. accidents and does not create the possibility volume curves for one and two unit operation will not increase the probability of Description of amendment request: of a new or different kind of accident from occurrence of an accident. The proposed The proposed change would amend any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not revision to Figure 3.1–2 corrects the errors Combined License Nos. NPF–93 and identified in the uncertainty calculation for NPF–94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3. create the possibility of a new or different one and two unit operation. Revising the The requested amendment proposes to kind of accident from any accident minimum acceptable BAT volume curves modify the existing feedwater controller previously evaluated. provide better assurance that the BATs will 3. Does the proposed change involve a continue to perform their required function, logic to allow the controller program to significant reduction in a margin of safety? respond as required to various plant thereby ensuring the consequences of Response: No. transients while minimizing the accidents previously evaluated are not Plant safety margins are established potential for false actuation. Because, increased. through limiting conditions for operation, Therefore, the proposed change does not this proposed change requires a limiting safety system settings, and safety involve a significant increase in the departure from Tier 1 information in the limits specified in the technical probability or consequences of an accident specifications. The proposed change to the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 previously evaluated. Design Control Document (DCD), the CSP Implementation Schedule is 2. Does the proposed change create the administrative in nature. In addition, the possibility of a new or different kind of licensee also requested an exemption milestone date delay for full implementation accident from any accident previously from the requirements of the Generic of the CSP has no substantive impact because evaluated? DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR other measures have been taken which Response: No. 52.63(b)(1). provide adequate protection during this The proposed change will not install any Basis for proposed no significant period of time. Because there is no change to new or different equipment or modify hazards consideration determination: established safety margins as a result of this equipment in the plant. The proposed change change, the proposed change does not As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the will not alter the operation or function of licensee has provided its analysis of the involve a significant reduction in a margin of structures, systems or components. The safety. issue of no significant hazards response of the plant and the operators Therefore, the proposed change does not following a design basis accident is consideration, which is presented involve a significant reduction in a margin of unaffected by this change. The proposed below: safety. change does not introduce any new failure 1. Does the proposed amendment involve The NRC staff has reviewed the modes and the design basis of the BATs is a significant increase in the probability or licensee’s analysis and, based on this maintained at the revised minimum volumes. consequences of an accident previously Therefore, the proposed change will not evaluated? review, it appears that the three create the possibility of a new or different Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are kind of accident from any previously The proposed changes will modify the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated. control logic for actuation of the startup proposes to determine that the 3. Does the proposed change involve a feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their amendment request involves no significant reduction in-the margin of safety? defense-in-depth function of core decay heat significant hazards consideration. Response: No. removal. The instrumentation used for Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. The proposed change corrects the actuation of the SFW pumps in their defense- Aluise, Associate General Counsel— uncertainty related to BAT volume in-depth function are not initiators of any measurement. The proposed minimum accident. The proposed control logic uses Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 acceptable BAT volume curves for one unit different instrument tag numbers than the Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana and two unit operation will provide better current design. The instruments used for the 70113. assurance that adequate shutdown margin is actuation of this function exist as a part of NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. available for any post shutdown time. The the current design; therefore this proposed limits used in the safety analysis are not change does not require any additional Florida Power & Light Company, Docket instrumentation. These instruments, to be affected. Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point Therefore, the proposed change does not included as part of the Design Reliability Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, involve a significant reduction in the margin Assurance Program (D–RAP), will be held to Miami-Dade County, Florida of safety. the same enhanced quality assurance (QA) requirements as the current instruments and Date of amendment request: April 16, The NRC staff has reviewed the therefore neither safety, performance, nor 2015. A publicly-available version is in licensee’s analysis and, based on this reliance will be reduced as a part of this ADAMS under Accession No. review, it appears that the three change. ML15119A222. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Additionally, the proposed changes do not Description of amendment request: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff adversely affect any accident initiating event The amendments would revise the proposes to determine that the or component failure, thus accidents mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Technical Specifications related to the amendment request involves no previously evaluated are not adversely boric acid tank (BAT) to reflect a significant hazards consideration. affected. In the event of loss of offsite power correction to the instrument uncertainty that results in a loss of main feedwater Attorney for licensee: William S. (MFW) supply, the SFW pumps calculation. Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, automatically supply feedwater to the steam Basis for proposed no significant Florida Power & Light Company, 700 generators to cool down the reactor under hazards consideration determination: Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno emergency shutdown conditions. The As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Beach, FL 33408–0420. standby source motor control center circuit licensee has provided its analysis of the NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. powers each of the two SFW pumps and their VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices 52807 associated instruments and valves. The pump SFW pumps. The proposed logic changes would modify the technical discharge isolation valves are motor-operated will only resolve the current conditions specifications to allow for the temporary and are normally closed and interlocked with associated with undesired start up signals for connection of the borated water storage the SFW pumps. In the event of loss of offsite the SFW pumps. The changes set forth in this power, the onsite standby power supply amendment correct the actuation logic of the tank to non-seismic piping for cleanup diesel generators will power the SFW pumps. SFW pumps, so that the feedwater controller and recirculation to support activities If both the normal [alternating current] ac logic is now aligned with the guidance associated with the TMI–1 Fall 2015 power and the onsite standby ac power are provided in the Advanced Light Water Refueling Outage and Fuel Cycle 21 unavailable, these valves will fail ‘‘as-is.’’ Reactor Utility Requirements Document operation. The pump suction header isolation valves are (ALWR URD). In addition, the operation of pneumatically actuated. The main and the startup feedwater system function is not Date of publication of individual startup feedwater system (FWS) also has credited to mitigate a design-basis accident. notice in Federal Register: August 7, temperature instrumentation in the pump Since there is no change to an existing design 2015 (80 FR 47529). discharge that would permit monitoring of basis limit/criterion, design function, or Expiration date of individual notice: the SFW temperature. This proposed change regulatory criterion no margin of safety is reduced. September 8, 2015 (public comments); therefore has no impact on the ability of the AP1000 plant to cool down under emergency Therefore, the proposed amendment does October 6, 2015 (hearing requests). shutdown conditions or during a loss of not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments offsite power event. to Facility Operating Licenses and No function used to mitigate a radioactive The NRC staff has reviewed the material release and no radioactive material Combined Licenses licensee’s analysis and, based on this release source term is involved, thus the review, it appears that the three During the period since publication of radiological releases in the accident analyses are not adversely affected. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the last biweekly notice, the Therefore, the proposed amendment does satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Commission has issued the following not involve a significant increase in the proposes to determine that the amendments. The Commission has probability or consequences of an accident amendment request involves no determined for each of these previously evaluated. significant hazards consideration. amendments that the application 2. Does the proposed amendment create Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. complies with the standards and the possibility of a new or different kind of Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, requirements of the Atomic Energy Act accident from any accident previously 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., evaluated? of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Washington, DC 20004–2514. Commission’s rules and regulations. Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. The proposed changes will modify the The Commission has made appropriate Burkhart. findings as required by the Act and the control logic for actuation of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their III. Previously Published Notices of Commission’s rules and regulations in defense-in-depth function of core decay heat Consideration of Issuance of 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in removal. The instrumentation used for Amendments to Facility Operating the license amendment. actuation of the SFW pumps in their defense- Licenses and Combined Licenses, in-depth function are not initiators of any A notice of consideration of issuance Proposed No Significant Hazards of amendment to facility operating accident. The proposed control logic uses different instrument tag numbers than the Consideration Determination, and license or combined license, as current design. However, the instruments Opportunity for a Hearing applicable, proposed no significant used for the actuation of this function already The following notices were previously hazards consideration determination, exist as a part of the current design and so published as separate individual and opportunity for a hearing in this change does not require any additional notices. The notice content was the connection with these actions, was instrumentation. These instruments, to be included as part of the D–RAP, will be held same as above. They were published as published in the Federal Register as to the same enhanced QA requirements as individual notices either because time indicated. the current instruments and so neither safety, did not allow the Commission to wait Unless otherwise indicated, the performance, nor reliance will be reduced as for this biweekly notice or because the Commission has determined that these a part of this change. Furthermore, since the action involved exigent circumstances. amendments satisfy the criteria for D–RAP ensures consistency with the They are repeated here because the categorical exclusion in accordance Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), the biweekly notice lists all amendments changes do not impact the PRA. The with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant issued or proposed to be issued to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental proposed changes would not introduce a new involving no significant hazards failure mode, fault, or sequence of events that impact statement or environmental could result in a radioactive material release. consideration. assessment need be prepared for these The proposed change does not alter the For details, see the individual notice amendments. If the Commission has design, configuration, or method of operation in the Federal Register on the day and prepared an environmental assessment of the plant beyond standard functional page cited. This notice does not extend under the special circumstances capabilities of the equipment. the notice period of the original notice. provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has Therefore, the proposed amendment does made a determination based on that not create the possibility of a new or different Exelon Generation Company, LLC, kind of accident from any accident Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island assessment, it is so indicated. previously evaluated. Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), For further details with respect to the 3. Does the proposed amendment involve Dauphin County, Pennsylvania action see (1) the applications for a significant reduction in a margin of safety? mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Date of amendment request: July 23, amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) Response: No. 2015, as supplemented by letter dated the Commission’s related letter, Safety The proposed changes will modify the Evaluation and/or Environmental control logic for actuation of the startup July 28, 2015. Publicly-available feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their versions are in ADAMS under Assessment as indicated. All of these defense-in-depth function of core decay heat Accession Nos. ML15204A843 and items can be accessed as described in removal. These changes will have no ML15209A960, respectively. the ‘‘Obtaining Information and negative impacts on the safety margin Brief description of amendment Submitting Comments’’ section of this associated with the design functions of the request: The proposed amendment document. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1

52808 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Brief description of amendments: The documents related to this amendment Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert proposed amendments would revise are listed in the Safety Evaluation Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 Technical Specifications Section 5.6.5, enclosed with the amendment. and 2, Calvert County, Maryland ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ Renewed Facility Operating License to add an NRC approved topical report No. DPR–56: The amendment revised Date of amendment request: May 1, reference to the list of analytical the Renewed Facility Operating License. 2014, as supplemented by letters dated methods that are used to determine the Date of initial notice in Federal May 1, 2015, and July 30, 2015. core operating limits. Specifically, the Register: June 10, 2015 (80 FR 32991). Brief description of amendments: The The Commission’s related evaluation proposed change adds a reference to amendments revised the Technical of the amendment is contained in a Westinghouse topical report WCAP– Specifications (TSs) to require that Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 16865–P–A, ‘‘Westinghouse BWR ECCS changes to specific surveillance 2015. [Boiling-Water Reactor Emergency Core frequencies will be made in accordance No significant hazards consideration Cooling System] Evaluation Model with Nuclear Energy Institute 04–10, comments received: No. Updates: Supplement 4 to Code Revision 1, ‘‘Risk-Informed Technical Description, Qualification and FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk- Application.’’ Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry Informed Method for Control of Date of issuance: August 5, 2015. Surveillance Frequencies.’’ The change Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake Effective date: As of the date of is the adoption of NRC-approved County, Ohio issuance and shall be implemented Technical Specification Task Force within 60 days from the date of Date of amendment request: (TSTF) Standard Technical issuance. November 24, 2014, as supplemented by Specifications Change Traveler TSTF– Amendment Nos.: 247, 240, 260 and letter dated May 12, 2015. 425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance 255. A publicly-available version is in Brief description of amendment: The Frequencies to Licensee Control— ADAMS under Accession No, amendment revised the battery capacity RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative ML15183A351; documents related to testing surveillance requirements in the 5b.’’ these amendments are listed in the technical specifications to reflect test Date of issuance: August 17, 2015. Safety Evaluation enclosed with the requirements when the battery is near Effective date: As of the date of amendments. end of life. issuance and shall be implemented Renewed Facility Operating License Date of issuance: August 17, 2015. within 120 days of issuance. Nos. DPR–19, DPR–25, DPR–29 and Effective date: As of the date of Amendment Nos.: 314 and 292. A DPR–30. The amendments revised the issuance and shall be implemented publicly-available version is in ADAMS Technical Specifications and License. within 60 days of issuance. under Accession No. ML15211A005; Date of initial notice in Federal Amendment No.: 170. A publicly- documents related to these amendments Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38577). available version is in ADAMS under are listed in the Safety Evaluation The June 29, 2015, supplement Accession No. ML15201A529; enclosed with the amendments. contained clarifying information and documents related to this amendment Renewed Facility Operating License did not change the NRC staff’s initial are listed in the Safety Evaluation Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments proposed finding of no significant enclosed with the amendment. revised the Renewed Facility Operating hazards consideration. Facility Operating License No. NPF– Licenses and TSs. The Commission’s related evaluation 58: Amendment revised the Facility Date of initial notice in Federal of the amendments is contained in a Operating License and Technical Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42549). Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 2015. Specifications. The supplemental letters dated May 1, No significant hazards consideration Date of initial notice in Federal 2015, and July 30, 2015, provided comments received: No. Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR additional information that clarified the 13907). The supplemental letter dated Exelon Generation Company, LLC and May 12, 2015, provided additional application, did not expand the scope of PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–278, the application as originally noticed, information that clarified the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, application, did not expand the scope of and did not change the NRC staff’s Unit 3, York and Lancaster Counties, original proposed no significant hazards the application as originally noticed, Pennsylvania and did not change the staff’s original consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. Date of amendment request: May 29, proposed no significant hazards The Commission’s related evaluation 2015. consideration determination as of the amendment is contained in a Brief description of amendment: The published in the Federal Register. Safety Evaluation dated August 17, amendment changed a license condition The Commission’s related evaluation 2015. pertaining to the submittal of a report of the amendment is contained in a containing revised analysis for the Safety Evaluation dated August 17, No significant hazards consideration replacement steam dryer. Specifically, 2015. comments received: No. the amendment reduced the length of No significant hazards consideration Exelon Generation Company, LLC, time for the submittal of the report from comments received: No. Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 90 days prior to the start of the extended Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 power uprate (EPU) outage to 30 days Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES and 3, Grundy County, Illinois prior to the start of the EPU outage. Date of issuance: August 11, 2015. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad County, Florida Effective date: As of the date of Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 issuance, to be implemented within 21 Date of amendment request: August 8, and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois days of issuance. 2014. Date of application for amendments: Amendment No.: 305. A publicly- Brief description of amendments: The December 19, 2013, as supplemented by available version is in ADAMS under amendments revised the Technical letter dated June 29, 2015. Accession No. ML15189A185; Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Notices 52809 4.4.7, ‘‘Chemistry,’’ which provides Safety Evaluation dated August 14, Date of issuance: August 7, 2015. limits on the oxygen, chloride, and 2015. Effective date: As of the date of fluoride content in the reactor coolant No significant hazards consideration issuance and shall be implemented system to minimize corrosion. The comments received: No. within 30 days of issuance. amendments require the licensee to Amendment No.: 101. A publicly- Omaha Public Power District, Docket relocate the requirements to the available version is in ADAMS under No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to Accession No. ML15177A334; No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska be controlled in accordance with 10 documents related to this amendment CFR 50.59, ‘‘Changes, tests, and Date of amendment request: May 16, are listed in the Safety Evaluation experiments.’’ 2014, as supplemented by letters dated enclosed with the amendment. Date of issuance: August 14, 2015. January 9, March 27, and July 2, 2015. Facility Operating License No. NPF– Effective date: As of the date of Brief description of amendment: The 90: Amendment revised the Facility issuance and shall be implemented amendment revised the Updated Safety Operating License. within 60 days of issuance. Analysis Report to allow pipe stress Date of initial notice in Federal Amendment Nos.: 225 and 175. A analysis of non-reactor coolant system Register: June 1, 2015 (80 FR 31076). publicly-available version is in ADAMS safety-related piping to be performed in The Commission’s related evaluation under Accession No. ML15161A442; accordance with the American Society of the amendment is contained in a documents related to these amendments of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2015. are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, 1980 No significant hazards consideration enclosed with the amendments. Edition (no Addenda) as an alternative comments received: No. Renewed Facility Operating License to the current Code of Record (i.e., Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments United States of America Standards of August, 2015. revised the TSs. B31.7, 1968 (DRAFT) Edition). For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date of initial notice in Federal Date of issuance: August 10, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of A. Louise Lund, Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64225). issuance and shall be implemented Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor The Commission’s related evaluation within 120 days from the date of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. of the amendments is contained in an issuance. Amendment No.: 283. A publicly- [FR Doc. 2015–21432 Filed 8–31–15; 8:45 am] SE dated August 14, 2015. No significant hazards consideration available version is in ADAMS under BILLING CODE 7590–01–P comments received: No. Accession No. ML15209A802; documents related to this amendment Florida Power & Light Company, Docket are listed in the Safety Evaluation OFFICE OF PERSONNEL Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point enclosed with the amendment. MANAGEMENT Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Renewed Facility Operating License Miami-Dade County, Florida No. DPR–40: The amendment revised Submission for Review: Notice of Date of application for amendments: the licensing basis as described in the Change in Student’s Status, RI 25–15, August 29, 2014. Updated Safety Analysis Report. 3206–0042 Brief description of amendments: The Date of initial notice in Federal AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel amendments revised the Technical Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38593). Management. Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/ The supplemental letters dated January 4.4.7, ‘‘Chemistry,’’ which provides ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for 9, March 27, and July 2, 2015, provided limits on the oxygen, chloride, and additional information that clarified the comments. fluoride content in the reactor coolant application, did not expand the scope of SUMMARY: The Retirement Services, system to minimize corrosion. The the application as originally noticed, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) amendments require the licensee to and did not change the staff’s original offers the general public and other relocate the requirements to the proposed no significant hazards Federal agencies the opportunity to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report consideration determination as comment on a revised information and related procedures to be controlled published in the Federal Register. collection request (ICR) 3206–0042, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, The Commission’s related evaluation Notice of Change in Student’s Status. As ‘‘Changes, tests, and experiments.’’ of the amendment is contained in a required by the Paperwork Reduction Date of issuance: August 14, 2015. safety evaluation dated August 10, 2015. Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Effective date: As of the date of No significant hazards consideration chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger- issuance and shall be implemented comments received: No. Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is within 60 days of issuance. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. soliciting comments for this collection. Amendment Nos.: 265 and 260. The amendments are in ADAMS under 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, DATES: Comments are encouraged and Accession No. ML15205A174; Rhea County, Tennessee will be accepted until November 2, documents related to these amendments Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015. This process is conducted in are listed in the Safety Evaluation 2015. accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1. enclosed with the amendments. Brief description of amendment: The ADDRESSES: Interested persons are mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Renewed Facility Operating License amendment revised the Cyber Security invited to submit written comments on Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments Plan for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit the proposed information collection to revised the TSs. 1 to illustrate the ‘‘Bright-Line’’ between Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Date of initial notice in Federal the critical digital assets that in the Personnel Management, 1900 E Street Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR scope of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: 70216). Unit 1 Cyber Security Plan and those Alberta Butler, Room 2349, or sent via The Commission’s related evaluation that are under the jurisdiction of the electronic mail to Alberta.Butler@ of the amendments is contained in a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. opm.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1


Document Created: 2018-02-26 10:04:24
Document Modified: 2018-02-26 10:04:24
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionBiweekly notice.
DatesComments must be filed October 1, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by November 2, 2015.
ContactBeverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email: [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 52801 
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR