[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41118-41125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16293]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0146]


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 (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 June 13, 2013 to June 26, 2013. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38078).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comment 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-2013-0146. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
of this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06A-44MP, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    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-2013-0146 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-2013-0146.
     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-2013-0146 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure

[[Page 41119]]

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

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 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 ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request 
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing 
or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held 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

[[Page 41120]]

to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding 
prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to 
intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities 
participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 
the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing 
process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory 
documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on 
electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of 
their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the 
procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at 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/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 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 the NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the 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's 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. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 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

[[Page 41121]]

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's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 26, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise a Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement to 
verify that acceptable steady-state limits on the electrical frequency 
are achieved by the two Keowee Hydro Units (KHUs), which are the 
emergency power sources for the Oconee Nuclear Station.
    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 amendment adds a new Technical Specification 
surveillance requirement to verify that the emergency power sources, 
KHUs, for the Oconee Nuclear Station achieve a steady state 
frequency of > 59.4 Hz and < 61.8 Hz. The proposed TS change 
implements a requirement already established by Selected Licensee 
Commitment (SLC) 16.8.5. The equipment used to collect steady state 
frequency data has been evaluated and will not affect the operation 
of the KHUs. Since the KHUs are not initiators of any accidents 
previously evaluated, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated. Since the performance of the surveillance has no effect 
on KHU operation, it does not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase 
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 change adds a new TS Surveillance Requirement. 
Performance of the surveillance has no effect on the operation of 
the KHUs. The changes do not alter the plant configuration (no new 
or different type of equipment will be installed) or make changes in 
methods governing normal plant operation. No installed equipment is 
being operated in a different manner. As such, 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 change adds a new TS Surveillance Requirement. The 
change provides an additional restriction to enhance plant safety. 
The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses and 
licensing basis. As such, no question of safety is involved.
    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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 25, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend 
Combined License numbers NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 by departing from the plant-specific 
design control document Tier 2 and Tier 2* material related to fire 
area boundaries and contained within the updated final safety analysis 
report (UFSAR). The proposed changes would alter the layout of the 
Annex Building and Turbine Building, change Turbine Building Stairwell 
S08, and clarify a UFSAR figure of the Annex Building heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning shafts.
    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 Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes, 
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions, and 
an Annex Building ventilation shaft Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) figure clarification would not affect any safety-
related equipment or function. The modified configurations would 
continue to maintain the associated fire protection (i.e., barrier) 
functions. The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the 
fire protection analysis results remain acceptable. The affected 
rooms and equipment do not contain or interface with safety-related 
equipment. The proposed changes do not involve any accident 
initiating event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously 
evaluated are not affected. The affected rooms do not represent a 
radioactive material barrier, and this activity does not involve the 
containment of radioactive material. The radioactive material source 
terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, 
thus the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
are not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes, 
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions, and 
an Annex Building ventilation shaft UFSAR figure clarification would 
not change the performance of the fire barriers. Fire zone loadings 
and associated fire analyses remain within their acceptance limits. 
The affected rooms do not contain equipment whose failure could 
initiate an accident. The affected rooms and associated equipment do 
not interface with components that contain radioactive material. The 
fire boundary changes do not create a new fault or sequence of 
events that could initiate a new kind of accident or result in a 
radioactive material release.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No
    The proposed Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes, 
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions, and 
an Annex Building ventilation shaft

[[Page 41122]]

UFSAR figure clarification would not change the fire protection 
performance of any fire barrier. No safety or fire requirement 
acceptance criterion would be exceeded or challenged. The safe 
shutdown fire analysis is not affected. No safety-related equipment, 
area or function is involved. The amounts of combustible material 
loadings in the affected fire zones remain within their applicable 
limits. The proposed fire boundary changes comply with existing 
design codes and regulatory criteria, and do not affect any safety 
analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Blach & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: May 13, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments request 
revision of TS 4.17, ``Shock Suppressors (Snubbers),'' and the TS 4.17 
Bases, as well as addition of TS 6.4.T, ``Inservice Examination, 
Testing, and Service Life Monitoring Program for Snubbers.'' The 
proposed change will revise the TS surveillance requirements for 
snubbers to be in accordance with ASME OM Code, Subsection ISTD, and 
will relocate the surveillance requirements to the Surry Units 1 and 2 
Inservice Examination, Testing, and Service Life Monitoring Program 
Plans for Snubbers.
    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 TS 4.17 to conform the TS to the 
revised snubber program and relocates the surveillance requirements 
to the Inservice Examination, Testing, and Service Life Monitoring 
Program for Snubbers. Snubber examination, testing and service life 
monitoring will meet the requirements of the ASME OM Code Subsection 
ISTD as allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(v).
    Snubber examination, testing, and service life monitoring are 
not initiators of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly 
increased.
    Snubber operability will continue to be demonstrated by 
performance of a program for examination, testing, and service life 
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions 
or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and 
components to perform their design functions. The consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of 
plant equipment. The proposed change does not change the method by 
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no 
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic 
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing 
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety 
analysis assumptions.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change ensures snubber examination, testing, and 
service life monitoring will meet the requirements of the ASME OM 
Code Subsection ISTD as allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(v). Snubbers 
will continue to be demonstrated operable by performance of a 
program for examination, testing, and service life monitoring in 
compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a.
    The schedule for subsequent 10-year updates to the Surry snubber 
program will coincide with 10-year updates to the Surry IST program. 
The need to perform the 10-year update for the Surry snubber program 
is required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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 NRC'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.

[[Page 41123]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: August 29, 2012, as 
supplemented by letters dated January 31, 2013, and April 26, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments add Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements for the Residual Heat Removal Drywell 
Spray function.
    Date of issuance: June 18, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 288 and 291.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 30, 2012 (77 FR 
65723).
    The letters dated January 31, 2013, and April 26, 2013, provided 
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination or expand the 
application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 18, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
    Date of application for amendments: July 6, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment would 
revise TS 5.3.1/6.3.1, ``Unit (Facility) Staff Qualifications,'' to 
remove operator license applicant education and experience requirements 
and add the requirement that Licensed Operators shall comply with part 
55 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).
    Date of issuance: June 17, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 173, 180, 200, 240, 233, 206, 193, 210, 171, 281, 
289, 292, 251, 246 and 280.
    Facility Operating License Nos.: NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66, 
NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, NPF-39, NPF-85, DPR-16, DPR-44, 
DPR-56, DPR-29, DPR-30, DPR-50: The amendments revised the Technical 
Specifications/Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 21, 2012.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: August 10, 2012, supplemented by 
letter dated February 13, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs), specifically, the requirements of the 
TSs related to station direct current battery surveillance requirements 
for terminal connection resistances.
    Date of issuance: June 18, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 215 and 165.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments 
revised the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 30, 2012 (77 FR 
65724). The supplement letter dated February 13, 2013, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 18, 2013.
    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: June 25, 2012, as supplemented by letter 
dated March 27, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
description of the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA) in Section XIV-6.4 of 
the Cooper Nuclear Station Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The 
revised USAR FHA description is based on changes to the Design Basis 
Accident FHA dose calculation, to reflect a 24-month cycle source term 
using a Global Nuclear Fuels (GNF) 10 x 10 fuel array, a reduced Radial 
Peaking Factor, and inclusion of a calculated shine contribution to the 
total dose.
    Date of issuance: June 26, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 246.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and the USAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 16, 2013 (78 FR 
22570). The supplemental letter dated March 27, 2013, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 1, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the 
Seabrook

[[Page 41124]]

Technical Specifications (TS). The amendment deletes the TS Index and 
makes corrections to Seabrook TS 3.4.8, ``Reactor Coolant System 
Specific Activity,'' and TS 6.8.1.6.a, ``Core Operating Limits 
Report.''
    Date of issuance: June 17, 2013.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 137.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the 
License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2013 (78 FR 
19752).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendment: June 6, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate the requirements that the 
average power range monitoring (APRM) system ``Upscale'' and 
``Inoperative'' scram and control rod withdrawal block functions be 
operable in Operational Condition (OPCON) 5, refueling operations.
    Date of issuance: June 26, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 194.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR 
16884).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna 
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: April 20, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The Amendment revises the TS 3.1.7 
to approve the use of an alternative method, other than the current 
method of the use of movable incore detectors system, to monitor the 
position of control rod or shutdown rod, in the event of a malfunction 
of the microprocessor rod position indication (MRPI) system. The use of 
this alternative method would reduce the required frequency of flux 
mapping using the movable incore detector system to determine the 
position of the control or shutdown rod position that is not being 
indicated. This will reduce the wear on the movable incore detector 
system that is also used to complete other required TS surveillances.
    Date of issuance: June 25, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
30 days.
    Amendment No.: 114.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 16, 2013 (78 FR 
22572).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric and Gas, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil 
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 3 and 4, Fairfield County, 
South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a 
departure from the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 
plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) material incorporated into 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) by revising the 
structural analysis requirements to provide alternative requirements 
for development of headed reinforcement bars (T-heads) within the 
nuclear island structures above the basemat elevation.
    Date of issuance: June 6, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 2-3, and Unit 3-3.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 16, 2013 (78 FR 
22563).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: June 13, 2012, as supplemented 
February 4, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed change will 
selectively implement an Alternate Source Term (AST) methodology in 
accordance with Regulatory Position 1.2.2 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design 
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' by modifying the WBN, Unit 
1 licensing basis for determining offsite and Control Room doses due to 
a Fuel Handling Accident (FHA). A license amendment is required for AST 
implementation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67(b)(1).
    Date of issuance: June 19, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than 60 days from date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 92.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 14, 2012 (77 
FR 56882). The supplement dated February 4, 2013, 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.

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

    Date of amendment Request: May 22, 2013, as supplemented June 12, 
2013.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendment revised the 
WBN, Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow a one-time 
extension to the Completion Time for TS Limiting Condition for 
Operation 3.6.6 Required Action A. 1 from 72 hours to 7 days for an 
inoperable Containment Spray (CS) Train B. This change is necessary to 
provide sufficient time to replace a leaking mechanical seal on CS Pump 
1B-B. The pump repair is currently scheduled for the week of June 24, 
2013. TVA requested this proposed TS change under exigent circumstances 
that the NRC expedite the review of the requested change to support 
approval by June 22, 2013. The supplemental letter dated June 12, 2013, 
provided additional information but did not expand the scope of the 
request or change the staff's original proposed NSHC determination.
    Date of issuance: June 22, 2013.
    Effective date: June 24, 2013.
    Amendment No.: 93.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the TSs.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. A notice

[[Page 41125]]

was published in June 3, 2013; 78 FR 33117. The notice provided an 
opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC 
determination. No comments have been received. The notice also provided 
an opportunity to request a hearing by August 2, 2013, but indicated 
that if the Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any such 
hearing would take place after the issuance of the amendment.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a safety evaluation dated June 22, 2013.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of June 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-16293 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P