[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52801-52809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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