Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 42554-42558 [2015-17645]

Download as PDF 42554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Notices Members of the public and media are welcome to attend and observe the evidentiary hearing, which will involve technical, scientific, and legal questions and testimony. Participation in the hearing will be limited to the parties, their lawyers, and witnesses. Please be aware that security measures will be employed at the entrance to the facility, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. No signs, banners, posters, or other displays will be permitted in the facility.20 No firearms or other weapons will be allowed in the facility.21 IV. Submitting Written Limited Appearance Statements As provided in 10 CFR 2.315(a), any person (other than a party or the representative of a party to this proceeding) may submit a written statement setting forth his or her position on matters of concern related to this proceeding, known as a limited appearance statement. Although these statements do not constitute testimony or evidence, and are not treated as statements made under oath, they nonetheless may assist the Board or the parties in their consideration of the issues in this proceeding. Anyone who is considering submitting a limited appearance statement, however, should be aware that the jurisdiction of this Board and the scope of this proceeding are limited to the Crow Butte License Renewal Application, and, more particularly, to the nine admitted contentions in Appendix A. Written limited appearance statements may be submitted by August 28, 2015, and should be sent by mail, fax, or email both to the Office of the Secretary and the Chairman of this Licensing Board: Office of the Secretary Mail: Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Fax: (301) 415–1101 (verification (301) 415–1966). Email: hearingdocket@nrc.gov. srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Chairman of the Licensing Board Mail: Administrative Judge Michael M. Gibson, Chairman, c/o Nicholas Sciretta & Sachin Desai, Law Clerks, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T–3F23, U.S. Nuclear 20 See Procedures for Providing Security Support for NRC Public Meetings/Hearings, 66 FR 31,719 (June 12, 2001). 21 A Notice prohibiting the use of weapons at Atomic Safety and Licensing Board proceedings in Nebraska will be issued shortly. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:59 Jul 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Fax: (301) 415–5599 (verification (301) 415–4128). Email: Nicholas.Sciretta@nrc.gov & Sachin.Desai@nrc.gov. V. Availability of Documentary Information Regarding the Proceeding Documents relating to Crow Butte’s License Renewal Application are available on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/ uranium/licensed-facilities/crowbutte.html. These and other documents related to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room, located in One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 or electronically from the publicly available records component of the NRC’s document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.22 Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document Room reference staff by telephone between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday except federal holidays at (800) 397–4209 or (301) 415–4737, or by sending an email to pdr.resource@ nrc.gov. It is so ordered. For The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Rockville, Maryland, July 13, 2015. Michael M. Gibson, Chair, Administrative Judge. Contentions To Be Heard at the Evidentiary Hearing Contention A: There is no evidence based science for the NRC Staff’s conclusion that ISL mining has ‘‘no non radiological health impacts,’’ or that non radiological impacts for possible excursions or spills are ‘‘small.’’ Contention C: The NRC Staff’s characterization that the impact of surface waters from an accident is ‘‘minimal since there are no nearby surface water features,’’ does not accurately address the potential for environmental harm to the White River. Contention D (merged with EA Contention 3 & 10): The NRC Staff incorrectly states there is no communication among the aquifers, when in fact, the Basal Chadron aquifer, where mining occurs, and the aquifer, which provides drinking water to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, communicate with each other, resulting in the possibility 22 Documents which are determined to contain sensitive or proprietary information may only be available in redacted form. All non-sensitive documents are available in their complete form. Frm 00088 [FR Doc. 2015–17593 Filed 7–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50–390; NRC–2015–0170] Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Appendix A PO 00000 of contamination of the potable water. Based on this potential communication between the aquifers, the EA’s environmental justice analysis, including analysis of cumulative effects, should be expanded to consider potential impacts on the aquifer which provides drinking water to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Contention F: Failure to include recent research. Contention 1 (Merged Contentions 1 & 2): Whether the cultural surveys performed and incorporated into the EA formed a sufficient basis on which to renew Crow Butte’s permit. Contention 6: The Final EA violates the National Environmental Policy Act in concluding that the short-term impacts from consumptive ground water use during aquifer restoration are MODERATE. Contention 9: The Final EA violates 10 CFR 51.10, 51.70 and 51.71, and the National Environmental Policy Act and implementing regulations by failing to include the required discussion of ground water restoration mitigation measures. Contention 12: The Final EA omits a discussion of the impact of tornadoes on the license renewal area, and inadequately discusses the potential impacts from land application of ISL mining wastewater. Contention 14: The Final EA violates the National Environmental Policy Act in its failure to provide an analysis of the impacts on the project from earthquakes; especially as it concerns secondary porosity and adequate confinement. These failings violate 10 CFR 51.10, 51.70 and 51.71, and the National Environmental Policy Act, and implementing regulations. Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF–90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The proposed amendment modifies the technical specifications to define support systems needed in the first 48 hours after a unit shutdown when steam generators are not available for heat removal. The proposed change is required to support dual unit operation of WBN (a licensing decision for WBN, Unit 2 is currently expected to be made in the fall of 2015). SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM 17JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Notices The proposed amendment also requests changes consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–273–A, Revision 2, to provide clarifications related to the requirements of the Safety Function Determination Program (SFDP). DATES: Submit comments by August 17, 2015. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 15, 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–2015–0170. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individuals 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: Jeanne Dion, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301–415–1349, email: Jeanne.Dion@nrc.gov, and Robert Schaaf, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301–415–6020, email: Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– 0170 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable 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–2015–0170. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:59 Jul 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The Application to Revise the Technical Specifications for Component Cooling Water and Essential Raw Cooling Water to Support Dual Unit Operations is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15170A474. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– 0170 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http:// www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. Introduction The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF–90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, for operation of WBN, Unit 1, located in Rhea County, Tennessee. The proposed amendment modifies the technical specifications to define support systems needed in the first 48 hours after a unit shutdown when steam generators are not available for heat removal. The proposed change is required to support dual unit operation of WBN (a licensing decision for WBN Unit 2 is currently expected to be made in the fall of 2015). The proposed amendment also requests changes consistent with TSTF–273–A, Revision 2, to provide clarifications related to the requirements of the SFDP. PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42555 Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC’s regulations. The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC’s regulations in § 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. 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 likelihood of a malfunction of any systems, structures or components (SSCs) supported by containment cooling system (CCS) and essential raw cooling water (ERCW) is not significantly increased by adding new technical specification (TS) for ERCW and CCS that require alternate CCS and ERCW system alignments during the first 48 hours after shut down of a unit when the steam generators are not available for heat removal. CCS and ERCW provide the means for transferring residual and decay heat to the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System for process and operating heat from safety related components during a transient or accident, as well as during normal operation. Although the proposed change includes a design change to allow two ERCW pumps to be powered from one diesel generator (DG), the additional ERCW pump is only aligned to the DG on a non-accident unit during a design basis event on the other unit, and does not result in overloading the DG due to the reduced loading on the non-accident DG. The CCS and ERCW are not initiators of any analyzed accident. All equipment supported by CCS and ERCW has been evaluated to demonstrate that their performance and operation remains as described in the FSAR with no increase in probability of failure or malfunction. The SSCs credited to mitigate the consequences of postulated design basis accidents remain capable of performing their design basis function. The change in CCS and ERCW system alignments has been evaluated to ensure the RHR System remains capable of removing normal operating and post-accident heat. Additionally, all the CCS and ERCW supported equipment, credited in the accident analysis to mitigate an accident, has E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM 17JYN1 srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 42556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Notices been shown to continue to perform their design function as described in the FSAR. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed TS changes add explanatory text to the programmatic description of the Safety Function Determination Program (SFDP) in TS 5.7.2.18 to clarify the requirements that consideration does not have to be made for a loss of power in determining loss of function. The Bases for LCO 3.0.6 is revised to provide clarification of the ‘‘appropriate LCO for loss of function,’’ and that consideration does not have to be made for a loss of power in determining loss of function. The changes are editorial and administrative in nature, and therefore do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. No physical or operational changes are made to the plant. The proposed changes do not change how the plant would mitigate 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 does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant operation, change the design function of any SSC, or change the mode of operation of any SSC. There are no new equipment failure modes or malfunctions created as the affected SSCs continue to operate in the same manner as previously evaluated and have been evaluated to perform their safety functions when in the alternate alignments as assumed in the accident analysis. Additionally, accident initiators remain as described in the FSAR and no new accident initiators are postulated as a result of the alternate CCS and ERCW alignments. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes [to TS 5.7.2.18] are editorial and administrative in nature and do not result in a change in the manner in which the plant operates. The loss of function of any specific component will continue to be addressed in its specific TS LCO, and plant configuration will be governed by the required actions of those LCOs. The proposed changes are clarifications that do not degrade the availability or capability of safety related equipment, and therefore do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis, and are consistent with VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:59 Jul 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Due to the administrative nature of the changes, they cannot be an accident initiator. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change continues to ensure that the cooling capability of RHR during normal operation and during the mitigation of a design basis event remains within the evaluated equipment limits and capabilities assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed change does not result in any changes to plant equipment functions, including setpoints and actuations. The proposed change does not alter existing limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, or safety limits specified in the Technical Specifications. The proposed change to add a new TS for ERCW and CCS assures the ability of these systems to support post-accident residual heat removal. Therefore, since there is no adverse impact of this change on the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant safety analysis, there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety of the plant. The proposed changes to TS 5.7.2.18 are clarifications and are editorial and administrative in nature. No changes are made to the LCOs for plant equipment, the time required for the TS Required Actions to be completed, or the out of service time for the components involved. The proposed changes do not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. 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 license amendment request involves a No Significant Hazards Consideration. The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60day notice period if the Commission concludes 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. III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal Register notice, any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene specifying the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing with respect to the license amendment request. Requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the NRC’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. 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/. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must 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 hearing request or petition must 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 E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM 17JYN1 srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Notices entered in the proceeding on the requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The hearing request or petition must also include the specific contentions that the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. For each contention, the requestor/ petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/ petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/ petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor’s/petitioner’s belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/ petitioner to relief. A requestor/ petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for 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 with respect to resolution of that person’s admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a crossexamination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided. Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:59 Jul 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2. IV. 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 EFiling process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42557 submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRCissued 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 ESubmittal 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/esubmittals.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 Webbased 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/esubmittals.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/esubmittals.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 E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM 17JYN1 srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 42558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Notices 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/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:59 Jul 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 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. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated June 17, 2015. Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of July 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jeanne Dion, Project Manager, Watts Bar Special Projects Branch, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2015–17645 Filed 7–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52–016; NRC–2008–0250] UniStar Nuclear Energy Combined License Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Application for combined license; withdrawal. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing the UniStar Nuclear Energy Combined License Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3. This document is being withdrawn because UniStar requested withdrawal of its application. SUMMARY: The effective date of the withdrawal of UniStar’s combined license application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 is July 17, 2015. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008–0250 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2008–0250. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. • 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surinder Arora, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1421, email: Surinder.Arora@ nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated July 13, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071980292), as supplemented by letters, dated March 14, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No(s). ML080990114 and ML080780459) and May 15, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML081410279), UniStar Nuclear (UniStar), submitted an application to the NRC for a combined license (COL) for a single unit of the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR) in accordance with the requirements contained in part 52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). This new reactor was identified as Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 (CCNPP3) located in Lusby, in Calvert County, Maryland. The notices of receipt and availability of the UniStar’s COL application were previously published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2007 (72 FR 45832) and May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24321). Subsequently a notice announcing the E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM 17JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42554-42558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17645]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-390; NRC-2015-0170]


Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request 
a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-90, 
issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, for operation of the Watts 
Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The proposed amendment modifies the 
technical specifications to define support systems needed in the first 
48 hours after a unit shutdown when steam generators are not available 
for heat removal. The proposed change is required to support dual unit 
operation of WBN (a licensing decision for WBN, Unit 2 is currently 
expected to be made in the fall of 2015).

[[Page 42555]]

The proposed amendment also requests changes consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-273-A, Revision 2, to 
provide clarifications related to the requirements of the Safety 
Function Determination Program (SFDP).

DATES: Submit comments by August 17, 2015. Requests for a hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 15, 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-2015-0170. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individuals 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: Jeanne Dion, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1349, email: Jeanne.Dion@nrc.gov, and 
Robert Schaaf, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-
415-6020, email: Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0170 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-2015-0170.
     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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
Application to Revise the Technical Specifications for Component 
Cooling Water and Essential Raw Cooling Water to Support Dual Unit 
Operations is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15170A474.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0170 in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, 
for operation of WBN, Unit 1, located in Rhea County, Tennessee.
    The proposed amendment modifies the technical specifications to 
define support systems needed in the first 48 hours after a unit 
shutdown when steam generators are not available for heat removal. The 
proposed change is required to support dual unit operation of WBN (a 
licensing decision for WBN Unit 2 is currently expected to be made in 
the fall of 2015). The proposed amendment also requests changes 
consistent with TSTF-273-A, Revision 2, to provide clarifications 
related to the requirements of the SFDP.
    Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will 
need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
    The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the NRC'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. 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 likelihood of a malfunction of any systems, structures or 
components (SSCs) supported by containment cooling system (CCS) and 
essential raw cooling water (ERCW) is not significantly increased by 
adding new technical specification (TS) for ERCW and CCS that 
require alternate CCS and ERCW system alignments during the first 48 
hours after shut down of a unit when the steam generators are not 
available for heat removal. CCS and ERCW provide the means for 
transferring residual and decay heat to the Residual Heat Removal 
(RHR) System for process and operating heat from safety related 
components during a transient or accident, as well as during normal 
operation. Although the proposed change includes a design change to 
allow two ERCW pumps to be powered from one diesel generator (DG), 
the additional ERCW pump is only aligned to the DG on a non-accident 
unit during a design basis event on the other unit, and does not 
result in overloading the DG due to the reduced loading on the non-
accident DG. The CCS and ERCW are not initiators of any analyzed 
accident. All equipment supported by CCS and ERCW has been evaluated 
to demonstrate that their performance and operation remains as 
described in the FSAR with no increase in probability of failure or 
malfunction.
    The SSCs credited to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
design basis accidents remain capable of performing their design 
basis function. The change in CCS and ERCW system alignments has 
been evaluated to ensure the RHR System remains capable of removing 
normal operating and post-accident heat. Additionally, all the CCS 
and ERCW supported equipment, credited in the accident analysis to 
mitigate an accident, has

[[Page 42556]]

been shown to continue to perform their design function as described 
in the FSAR.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed TS changes add explanatory text to the programmatic 
description of the Safety Function Determination Program (SFDP) in 
TS 5.7.2.18 to clarify the requirements that consideration does not 
have to be made for a loss of power in determining loss of function. 
The Bases for LCO 3.0.6 is revised to provide clarification of the 
``appropriate LCO for loss of function,'' and that consideration 
does not have to be made for a loss of power in determining loss of 
function. The changes are editorial and administrative in nature, 
and therefore do not increase the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated. No physical or operational changes are made to 
the plant. The proposed changes do not change how the plant would 
mitigate 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 does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant 
operation, change the design function of any SSC, or change the mode 
of operation of any SSC. There are no new equipment failure modes or 
malfunctions created as the affected SSCs continue to operate in the 
same manner as previously evaluated and have been evaluated to 
perform their safety functions when in the alternate alignments as 
assumed in the accident analysis. Additionally, accident initiators 
remain as described in the FSAR and no new accident initiators are 
postulated as a result of the alternate CCS and ERCW alignments.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes [to TS 5.7.2.18] are editorial and 
administrative in nature and do not result in a change in the manner 
in which the plant operates. The loss of function of any specific 
component will continue to be addressed in its specific TS LCO, and 
plant configuration will be governed by the required actions of 
those LCOs. The proposed changes are clarifications that do not 
degrade the availability or capability of safety related equipment, 
and therefore do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. There are 
no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the 
changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed). The changes 
do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis, and are 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant 
operating practice. Due to the administrative nature of the changes, 
they cannot be an accident initiator.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change continues to ensure that the cooling 
capability of RHR during normal operation and during the mitigation 
of a design basis event remains within the evaluated equipment 
limits and capabilities assumed in the accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not result in any changes to plant equipment 
functions, including setpoints and actuations. The proposed change 
does not alter existing limiting conditions for operation, limiting 
safety system settings, or safety limits specified in the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed change to add a new TS for ERCW and CCS 
assures the ability of these systems to support post-accident 
residual heat removal.
    Therefore, since there is no adverse impact of this change on 
the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant safety analysis, there is no significant 
reduction in the margin of safety of the plant.
    The proposed changes to TS 5.7.2.18 are clarifications and are 
editorial and administrative in nature. No changes are made to the 
LCOs for plant equipment, the time required for the TS Required 
Actions to be completed, or the out of service time for the 
components involved. The proposed changes do not affect the safety 
analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a 
change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed changes do not 
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is 
there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure 
the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed changes 
will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the 
design basis.
    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 
license amendment request involves a No Significant Hazards 
Consideration.
    The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination 
that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration. 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 notice period if the Commission concludes 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.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal 
Register notice, any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who desires to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written request for hearing or a petition for leave to 
intervene specifying the contentions which the person seeks to have 
litigated in the hearing with respect to the license amendment request. 
Requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in accordance with the NRC'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. 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/.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for 
leave to intervene must 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 hearing request or petition must 
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

[[Page 42557]]

entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The 
hearing request or petition must also include the specific contentions 
that the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 
proceeding.
    For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a 
specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or 
controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the 
contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate 
that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the 
proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to 
support the granting of a license amendment in response to the 
application. The hearing request or petition must also include a 
concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support 
the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at 
the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and 
documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on 
a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific 
portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes 
and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/
petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain 
information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/
petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for 
the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A 
requestor/petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for 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 with respect to resolution of that person's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to 
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, 
consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any 
prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate 
notices will be provided.
    Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed 
no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for 
leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-
day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the 
presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying 
the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the 
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the 
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 
10 CFR part 2.

IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital 
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at 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

[[Page 42558]]

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 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
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.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for license amendment dated June 17, 2015.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of July 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jeanne Dion,
Project Manager, Watts Bar Special Projects Branch, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-17645 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P