[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70837-70846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28566]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0283]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission 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 November 1 to November 14, 2012. The last 
biweekly notice was published on November 13, 2012 (77 FR 67679).

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by 
searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-0283. 
You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0283. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0283 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0283.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library 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. Documents may be viewed in 
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
     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-2012-0283 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and the NRC does not 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 in their comment submissions 
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should 
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such 
information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

Notice 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 Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be

[[Page 70838]]

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.
    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 ``Rules of 
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' 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. NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC 
Library on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    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 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital information (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/apply-certificates.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

[[Page 70839]]

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 Electronic Information Exchange System, users 
will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC 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 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 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 agency'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 Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at 
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. With 
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve 
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three 
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the 
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon 
which the filing is based is materially different from information 
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a 
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment, which is available for 
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, 
North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements for missed 
surveillances in Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.0.3 and TS SR 4.0.1 to 
address how a SR is met. The changes are consistent with the NRC-
approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard 
Technical Specifications (STS) change TSTF-358 Revision 6, ``Missed 
Surveillance Requirements.'' The availability of this TS improvement 
was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2001, as part of 
the consolidated line item improvement process.
    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 incorporate the requirements of improved 
STS SR 3.0.1 into corresponding HNP TS SR 4.0.1, does not affect the 
design or operation of the plant. The proposed change involves 
revising the existing HNP TS to be consistent with

[[Page 70840]]

NUREG-1431, Revision 4, to facilitate the incorporation of TSTF-358 
into the TS. The proposed change involves no technical changes to 
the existing TS as it merely clarifies how SRs are met. As such, 
these changes are administrative in nature and do not affect 
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events. 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 incorporate the requirements of improved 
STS SR 3.0.1 into corresponding HNP TS SR 4.0.1, does not involve a 
physical alteration to the plant (no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed) or changes in methods governing normal 
plant operation. The proposed change revises the existing HNP TS to 
be consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 4, to clarify how SRs are 
met and facilitates the incorporation of TSTF-358 for addressing 
missed surveillances. As such, the proposed change will not impose 
any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing 
requirements. 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 change involve a significant reduction in the margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to incorporate the requirements of improved 
STS SR 3.0.1 into corresponding HNP TS SR 4.0.1, does not affect 
plant operation or safety analysis assumptions in any way. The 
change provides additional clarification on how a surveillance is 
met and facilitates the incorporation of TSTF-358 for addressing 
missed surveillances. The change is administrative in nature and 
does not affect the operation of safety-related systems, structures, 
or components. 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: David T. Conley, Manager--Senior Counsel--
Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP), Darlington County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 6, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change will delete 
Function 14, SG [Steam Generator] Water Level--Low, Coincident with 
Steam Flow/Feedwater Flow Mismatch, from Technical Specifications Table 
3.3.1-1, Reactor Protection System Instrumentation. The licensee has 
installed median signal selector (MSS) modules during the most recent 
refueling outage. The installation of MSS modules enables the feedwater 
control system design to meet the requirements of the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)-279 ``IEEE Standard 
Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations'' 
related to the potential for adverse control and protection system 
interactions and eliminates the need for the SG Water Level--Low 
Coincident with Steam Flow/Feedwater Flow Mismatch Reactor Protection 
System reactor trip function to meet IEEE-279 criteria.
    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 initiating conditions and assumptions for accidents 
described in the Updated Final Safety Analyses Report remain as 
previously analyzed. The proposed change does not introduce a new 
accident initiator nor does it introduce changes to any existing 
accident initiators or scenarios described in the Updated Final 
Safety Analyses Report. The SG Water Level--Low, Coincident with 
Steam Flow/Feedwater Flow Mismatch reactor trip function is not 
credited for accident mitigation in any accident analyses described 
in the Updated Final Safety Analyses Report. The SG Water Level--
Low, Coincident with Steam Flow/Feedwater Flow Mismatch reactor trip 
function was designed to meet the control and protection systems 
interaction criteria of IEEE-279. The MSS modules prevent adverse 
control and protection system interaction such that it replaces the 
need for the SG Water Level--Low, Coincident with Steam Flow/
Feedwater Flow Mismatch reactor trip function to satisfy the IEEE-
279 requirements. As such, the affected control and protection 
systems will continue to perform their required functions without 
adverse interaction, and maintain the capability to shut down the 
reactor when required on Low--Low Steam Generator water level. The 
ability to mitigate a loss of heat sink accident previously 
evaluated is unaffected.
    Based on the above, 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 substitution of the MSS modules for the SG Water Level--Low, 
Coincident with Steam Flow/Feedwater Flow Mismatch reactor trip 
function will not introduce any new failure modes to the required 
protection functions. The MSS modules only interact with the 
feedwater control system. The Steam Generator Water Level Low--Low 
protection function is not affected by this change. Isolation 
devices upstream of the MSS modules ensure that the Steam Generator 
Water Level Low--Low protection function is not affected. The MSS 
modules utilize highly reliable components in a configuration that 
relies on a minimum of additional equipment. Components used in the 
MSS modules are of a quality consistent with low failure rates and 
minimum maintenance requirements, and conform to protection system 
requirements. Furthermore, the design provides the capability for 
complete unit testing that provides determination of credible system 
failures. It is through these features that the overall design of 
the MSS modules minimizes the occurrence of undetected failures that 
may exist between test intervals.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in the margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve revisions to any safety 
analysis limits or safety system settings that will adversely impact 
plant safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the functional 
capabilities assumed in a safety analysis for any system, structure, 
or component important to the mitigation and control of design bases 
accident conditions within the facility. Nor does this amendment 
revise any parameters or operating restrictions that are assumptions 
of a design basis accident. In addition, the proposed amendment does 
not affect the ability of safety systems to ensure that the facility 
can be placed and maintained in a shutdown condition for extended 
periods of time.
    The ability of the Steam Generator Water Level Low--Low reactor 
trip function credited in the safety analysis to protect against a 
sudden loss of heat sink event is not affected by the proposed 
change. Since the Steam Generator Low--Low Level trip is credited 
alone as providing complete protection for the accident transients 
that result in low steam generator level, eliminating the SG Water 
Level--Low, Coincident with Steam Flow/Feedwater Flow

[[Page 70841]]

Mismatch reactor trip function will not change any safety analysis 
conclusion for any analyzed accident described in the Updated Final 
Safety Analyses Report.
    The MSS modules prevent adverse control and protection system 
interaction such that it replaces the need for the SG Water Level--
Low, Coincident with Steam Flow/Feedwater Flow Mismatch reactor trip 
function and satisfies the IEEE-279 requirements. The proposed 
change improves the margin of safety since removal of the SG Water 
Level--Low, Coincident with Steam Flow/Feedwater Flow Mismatch 
reactor trip function decreases the potential for challenges to 
plant safety systems. These changes result in a reduction in the 
potential for unnecessary plant transients.
    The Technical Specifications continue to assure that the 
applicable operating parameters and systems are maintained within 
the design requirements and safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, 
the elimination of this trip function will not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the 
Updated Final Safety Analyses Report or Technical Specifications.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in any 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: David T. Conley, Manager--Senior Counsel--
Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: September 6, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specifications (TS) requirements for inoperable 
snubbers by adding limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.0.8. The 
changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specifications (STS) change TSTF-372, Revision 4. The availability of 
this TS improvement was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 
2005 (70 FR 23252), as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process (CLIIP).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: The licensee has reviewed the proposed no significant 
hazards consideration determination published in the Federal Register 
as part of the CLIIP and has concluded that the proposed no significant 
hazards consideration determination presented in the Federal Register 
notice is applicable to Palisades Nuclear Plant. The analysis of the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration 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 allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. Entrance into Actions 
or delaying entrance into Actions is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
consequences of an accident while relying on the delay time allowed 
before declaring a TS supported system inoperable and taking its 
Conditions and Required Actions are no different than the 
consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while 
relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and Required 
Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased by this change. Therefore, 
this 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 allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation. Thus, this 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.
    The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change 
restores an allowance in the pre-ISTS [Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications] conversion TS that was unintentionally eliminated by 
the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to provide an 
adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does the post-ISTS 
conversion TS. Therefore, this 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: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert Carlson.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.7, ``Reactor Coolant Pump 
Flywheel Inspection Program,'' to extend the reactor coolant pump (RCP) 
motor flywheel examination frequency from the currently approved 10-
year examination frequency to an interval not to exceed 20 years, in 
accordance with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
change traveler TSTF-421-A, Revision 0, ``Revision to RCP Flywheel 
Inspection Program (WCAP-15666),'' that has been approved generically 
for the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (STSs), NUREG-
1431.
    A notice announcing the availability of this proposed TS change 
using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process was published in 
the Federal Register on October 22, 2003 (68 FR 60422). The TSTF-421 
model safety evaluation, model no significant hazards consideration 
(NSHC) determination, and model license amendment request were 
published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2003 (68 FR 37590). In 
its letter dated September 12, 2012, the licensee affirmed the 
applicability of the model NSHC determination, which is presented 
below.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of NSHC adopted by the licensee is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated.
    The proposed change to the RCP flywheel examination frequency does 
not change the response of the plant to any accidents. The RCP will 
remain highly reliable and the proposed change will not result in a 
significant increase in the risk of plant operation. Given the 
extremely low failure probabilities for

[[Page 70842]]

the RCP motor flywheel during normal and accident conditions, the 
extremely low probability of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with 
loss of offsite power (LOOP), and assuming a conditional core damage 
probability (CCDP) of 1.0 (complete failure of safety systems), the 
core damage frequency (CDF) and change in risk would still not exceed 
the NRC's acceptance guidelines contained in RG 1.174 (<1.0E-6 per 
year). Moreover, considering the uncertainties involved in this 
evaluation, the risk associated with the postulated failure of an RCP 
motor flywheel is significantly low. Even if all four RCP motor 
flywheels are considered in the bounding plant configuration case, the 
risk is still acceptably low.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors, nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility, or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained; alter or prevent the ability of structures, 
systems, components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits; or affect the source term, containment isolation, or 
radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed 
change does not increase the type or amount of radioactive effluent 
that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or 
cumulative occupational/public radiation exposure. The proposed change 
is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant 
consequences. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated
    The proposed change in flywheel inspection frequency does not 
involve any change in the design or operation of the RCP. Nor does the 
change to examination frequency affect any existing accident scenarios, 
or create any new or different accident scenarios. Further, the change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or alter the methods 
governing normal plant operation. In addition, the change does not 
impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing 
requirements, and does not alter any assumptions made in the safety 
analysis. The proposed change is 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.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are 
not impacted by this change. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis. The 
calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the acceptance 
criteria contained in RG 1.174. There are no significant mechanisms for 
inservice degradation of the RCP flywheel. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee 
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 requests involve no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
change Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements 3.8.1.9, 
3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12 and 3.8.1.19 in TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-Operating.'' 
Specifically, the proposed amendments will increase Diesel Generator 
(DG) acceptable minimum steady state voltage when operating in 
emergency/isochronous mode.
    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 increase of the DG surveillance minimum steady 
state isochronous voltage does not adversely affect DGs or any other 
Systems Structures, and Components (SSCs) design function or an 
analysis that verifies the capability of an SSC to perform its 
design function. Implementation of the proposed change does neither 
involve physical work activity to the DGs, nor change the safety 
function of the diesel generators. This change only affects one of 
the surveillance criteria to determine acceptable steady state 
operation of the diesel following simulated or actual load 
rejection, Loss Of Offsite Power (LOOP), Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS) initiation and LOOP in conjunction with ECCS signals. 
As such, the proposed amendment would not change any of the 
previously evaluated accidents in the FSAR [final safety analysis 
report]. The DG capability to provide highly reliable and self-
contained source of power, in the event of a complete loss of 
offsite power to the associated 4.16kV bus, for the electrical loads 
required for a simultaneous shutdown of both reactors remains 
unaffected. Affected SSCs, operating procedures, and administrative 
controls do not have the function of preventing or mitigating any of 
the accidents as described in the FSAR.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect current plant 
operation parameters. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not 
result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences 
of any previously evaluated accident.
    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 amendment will not adversely affect the design 
function or operation of the diesel generators as described in the 
FSAR. Implementation of this TS change will not require installation 
of new system component, construction activities, and performance of 
testing or maintenance that will affect the DGs operation or their 
ability to perform their design function. Changes in affected 
surveillance procedures have been made to increase the DG 
surveillance minimum steady state isochronous voltage from 3793 V to 
4000V. This change represents only an increase in the minimum 
acceptable steady state isochronous voltage and does not affect 
steps performed within these procedures or any other plant document 
used to demonstrate DGs capability to perform their design function. 
Credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases of SSES 
[Susquehanna Steam Electric Station] would not be added by the 
proposed amendment. As such, the proposed change would not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

[[Page 70843]]

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed increase of the DG surveillance minimum steady 
state isochronous voltage would only adjust minimum acceptable 
steady state voltage since DGs surveillances historical data have 
shown minimum steady state voltage above 3793V. This TS change will 
tighten DGs surveillance steady state voltage acceptable band and 
lessen the potential adverse effect on degraded grid relays 
operation. As such, it would represent a conservative increase of 
the DG surveillance minimum steady state voltage when operating in 
isochronous (emergency) mode. No changes to the DG surveillance 
maximum steady state voltage or its surveillance requirements when 
operating in test (droop) mode will be implemented as part of this 
proposed amendment.
    PPL Susquehanna, LLC operation safety margin is established and 
maintained through the design of its SSCs, parameters of operation, 
and component actuation setpoints. The proposed change does not 
exceed or alter an existing design basis or safety limit as 
established in the FSAR or the license. Thus, it does not 
significantly reduce previously existing safety margin.
    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: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General 
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, 
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
change Surveillance Requirements 3.8.1.19 in Technical Specification 
(TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-Operating.'' Specifically, the proposed 
amendments will increase the minimum steady state frequency for Diesel 
Generator E during the loss of offsite power (LOOP) & Emergency Core 
Cooling System surveillance.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This LAR [license amendment request] proposes to provide more a 
restrictive minimum frequency requirement for Diesel Generator E 
during a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]/LOOP surveillance. The 
minimum steady state frequency would be changing from 2% to 
approximately 1% below nominal (60Hz).
    This change has no influence on the probability or consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated. The minimum steady state 
frequency change does not affect the operation of Diesel Generator E 
or connected equipment. The change only affects the minimum 
allowable value for the steady state frequency and does not change 
the actual setting, which is the setting that protects the Diesel 
Generator loads.
    This change does not affect the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated because the proposed change does 
not make a change to any accident initiator, initiating condition, 
or assumption. The proposed action does not involve physical changes 
to the Diesel Generator, nor does it change the safety function of 
the Diesel Generator.
    The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the 
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident 
operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, 
or components.
    The proposed action does not change any other behavior or 
operation of any Diesel Generator, and, therefore, has no 
significant impact on reactor operation. It also has no significant 
impact on response to any perturbation of reactor operation 
including transients and accidents previously analyzed in the Final 
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of any 
previously evaluated accident.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of, accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed increase in the minimum steady state frequency only 
affects the minimum allowable value, and not the steady state 
frequency setpoint.
    The proposed minimum steady state frequency does not adversely 
affect the operation of any safety-related components or equipment. 
Since the proposed action does not involve hardware changes, 
significant changes to the operation of any systems or components, 
nor change to existing structures, systems, or components, there is 
no possibility that a new or different kind of accident is created.
    The proposed change does not involve physical changes to Diesel 
Generator E, nor does it change the safety function of Diesel 
Generator E. The proposed change does not require any physical 
change or alteration of any existing plant equipment. No new or 
different equipment is being installed, and installed equipment is 
not being operated in a new or different manner. There is no 
alteration to the parameters within which the plant is normally 
operated. This change does not alter the manner in which equipment 
operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited 
equipment be changed. No alterations in the procedures that ensure 
the plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no 
changes are being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to 
an off-normal event as described in the FSAR. As such, no new 
failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed increase in the minimum steady state frequency only 
affects the minimum allowable value, and not the actual steady state 
frequency nominal setpoint, which will remain at 60 Hz. The increase 
in the minimum steady state frequency is a change to increase 
conservatism.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within 
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints 
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. 
The proposed change does not significantly impact the condition or 
performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for 
accident mitigation. The proposed change does not reduce the margin 
of safety that exists in the present Technical Specifications or the 
Final Safety Analysis Report.
    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: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General 
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, 
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Docket Nos.: 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos.: NPF-91 and

[[Page 70844]]

NPF-92 for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, 
respectively, by adding four non-Class 1E containment electrical 
penetration assemblies (EPAs). Containment EPAs are a passive extension 
of containment which provide the passage of the electric conductors 
through a single aperture in the nuclear containment structure, while 
providing a pressure barrier between the inside and the outside of the 
containment structure.
    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 additional containment EPAs are a passive extension of 
containment and provide a pathway for passage of non-Class 1E 
electrical conductors between the Auxiliary Building and 
Containment. The proposed containment EPAs are similar in form, fit 
and function to the current non-Class 1E containment EPAs. The 
maximum allowable leakage rate allowed by Technical Specifications 
is unchanged by this activity. The new EPAs will meet the same 
design function as current EPAs.
    Therefore, the proposed activity 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 containment EPAs are similar in form, fit, and 
function to the current non-Class 1E containment EPAs. The new EPAs 
will meet the same design function as current EPAs. Because the new 
EPAs are virtually identical in design and function to the current 
EPAs, no new type of failure modes exist.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed containment EPAs are similar in form, fit and 
function to the current non-Class 1E containment EPAs. The 
additional EPAs are an engineered passive extension of containment, 
and, therefore, do not affect containment or its ability to perform 
its design function. The addition of the new EPAs does not exceed or 
alter a design basis or safety limit.
    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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Mark E. Tonacci.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: August 28, 2012 (TS-475).
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
allow the licensee to delete the references to Section XI of the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code (ASME Code) and add 
references to the ASME Code Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power 
Plants to Section 5.5.6 to the Technical Specifications (TSs). More 
specifically, the revision will allow the application of a 25 percent 
extension of surveillance interval to the accelerated frequencies used 
in the Inservice Test (IST) 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, 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 revises BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3, TS 5.5.6, 
Inservice Testing Program, for consistency with the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves, which are classified as 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 
2, and Class 3. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the 
ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for 
testing pumps and valves. The proposed change also includes an 
administrative change to include application of the allowances 
provided by TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 for IST SR 
frequencies of 2 years or less.
    The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators or 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events. The proposed change does not involve the addition or removal 
of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore, 
this proposed change does not represent 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 revises BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3, TS 5.5.6, 
Inservice Testing Program, for consistency with the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves, which are classified as 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 
2, and Class 3. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the 
ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for 
testing pumps and valves. The proposed change also includes an 
administrative change to include application of the allowances 
provided by TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 for IST SR 
frequencies of 2 years or less.
    The proposed change does not involve a modification to the 
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be 
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different 
requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident 
precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no 
change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that 
may be released off-site, and there is no increase in individual or 
cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, this proposed change 
does not create the possibility of an accident of a different kind 
than previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3, TS 5.5.6, 
Inservice Testing Program, for consistency with the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves, which are classified as 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 
2, and Class 3. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the 
ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for 
testing pumps and valves. The proposed change also includes an 
administrative change to include application of the allowances 
provided by TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 for IST SR 
frequencies of 2 years or less. The safety function of the affected 
pumps and valves are maintained. Therefore, this 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

[[Page 70845]]

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 are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the 
NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by 
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of application for amendment: June 22, 2012. A publicly 
available version is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12184A047.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cyber 
Security Plan Implementation Schedule as approved in license amendment 
issued on July 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11152A043).
    Date of issuance: November 13, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance and shall be implemented by December 31, 2012.
    Amendment No.: 238.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2012 (77 
FR 55870).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of application for amendment: July 2, 2012. A publicly 
available version is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML121910298.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the Cyber 
Security Plan Implementation Schedule as approved in license amendment 
issued on July 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11152A013).
    Date of Issuance: November 13, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance and shall be implemented by December 31, 2012.
    Amendment No.: 251.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment 
revised the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2012 (77 
FR 55870).
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Station (TPN), Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida

    Date of application for amendments: April 30, 2012, as supplemented 
by letters dated October 10 and 18, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 6.8.4.j, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 
6.9.1.8, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' The changes 
establish permanent SG tube alternate repair criteria for tubing flaws 
located in the lower region of the tubesheet and accompanying 
inspection and reporting requirements. The alternate repair criteria 
replace previous temporary alternate repair criteria and accompanying 
inspection and reporting requirements for TPN Unit Nos. 3 and 4.
    Date of issuance: November 5, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to entering COLD SHUTDOWN conditions for refueling outage 27.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit No. 3-254 and Unit No. 4-250.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR 
47126). The supplements dated October 10 and 18, 2012, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 5, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of application for amendments: July 16, 2012, as supplemented 
by letter dated August 10, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) \3/4\.4.5, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,'' 
TS 6.8.4.j, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 6.9.1.8, ``Steam 
Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' in accordance with TS Task Force 
Traveler (TSTF)-510, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection

[[Page 70846]]

Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
    Date of issuance: November 6, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 7 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit No. 3-255 and Unit No. 4-251.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2012 (77 
FR 53929).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 6, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Plant, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of application for amendments: August 7, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation 
System.'' The proposed TS change added a footnote that modifies system 
requirements for operations during MODES 5 and 6.
    Date of issuance: November 5, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit No. 3-253 and Unit No. 4-249.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR 
60151).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 5, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: May 30, 2012, as supplemented by letters 
dated October 3 and 31, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical 
Specification (TS) Section 2.0, ``Safety Limits,'' by revising the two 
recirculation loop and single recirculation loop safety limit Minimum 
Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) values to reflect results of a cycle-
specific calculation. Specifically, the amendment revised the safety 
limit in TS 2.1.1.2 by changing the value of MCPR for two-loop 
operation from >= 1.10 to >= 1.11 and the value of MCPR for single-loop 
operation from >= 1.12 to >= 1.13.
    Date of issuance: November 9, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup from Refueling Outage RE27.
    Amendment No.: 243.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR 
47127). It was re-noticed in the Federal Register on November 5, 2012 
(77 FR 66489). The supplemental letters dated October 3 and 31, 2012, 
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 
second notice also provided an opportunity to request a hearing by 
January 4, 2013, but indicated that if the Commission makes a final no 
significant hazards consideration determination, any such hearing would 
take place after issuance of the amendment.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final 
determination of no significant hazards consideration are contained in 
a Safety Evaluation dated November 9, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the scope 
of the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule Milestone 6 
and the existing license condition in the facility operating license.
    Date of issuance: November 2, 2012.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 132.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2012 (77 FR 
48560).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 2, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: February 14, 2012, and revised on March 
12, 2012, and supplemented by letter dated August 9, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Vogtle 
Units 3 and 4 plant-specific design control document Figure 3.8.3-8, 
Sheet 1, Note 2 by revising the structural module shear stud size and 
spacing requirements.
    Date of issuance: November 6, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 3-3, and Unit 4-3.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 17, 2012 (77 FR 
22817).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 6, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of November 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-28566 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P