Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 67679-67688 [2012-27384]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67679-67688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27384]



[[Page 67679]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0274]


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 October 18, 2012 to October 31, 2012. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 30, 2012 (77 FR 65720).

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, 
by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0274. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0274. 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-2012-0274 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0274.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at https://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-2012-0274 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 that that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment 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

[[Page 67680]]

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. The NRC regulations are 
accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at 
https://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 the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including 
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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

[[Page 67681]]

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 https://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 
https://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's Library at https://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.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of amendment request: October 2, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to support operations with 24-month fuel 
cycles in accordance with the guidance of NRC Generic Letter 91-04, 
``Changes in Technical Specification Surveillance Intervals to 
Accommodate a 24 Month Fuel Cycle,'' dated April 2, 1991. In addition, 
consistent with this guidance, the amendment would change testing 
frequencies from 18 to 24 months in TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter 
Testing Program (VFTP).''
    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.
    The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance 
testing intervals to facilitate a change in the operating cycle 
length. The proposed TS changes do not physically impact the plant. 
The proposed TS changes do not degrade the performance of, or 
increase the challenges to, any safety systems assumed to function 
in the accident analysis. The proposed TS changes do not impact the 
usefulness of the SRs in evaluating the operability of required 
systems and components, or the way in which the surveillances are 
performed. In addition, the frequency of surveillance testing is not 
considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a 
revision to the frequency introduce any accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not 
significantly increased. The proposed change does not affect the 
performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological 
consequences of an accident. Evaluation of the proposed TS changes 
demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is not 
significantly affected because of other more frequent testing that 
is performed, the availability of redundant systems and equipment, 
and the high reliability of the equipment. Historical review of 
surveillance test results and associated maintenance records did not 
find evidence of failures that would invalidate the above 
conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    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 TS changes involve a change in the surveillance 
testing intervals to facilitate a change in the operating cycle 
length. The proposed TS changes do not introduce any failure 
mechanisms of a

[[Page 67682]]

different type than those previously evaluated, since there are no 
physical changes being made to the facility.
    No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed 
equipment is being operated in a different manner. As a result, no 
new failure modes are being introduced. The way surveillance tests 
are performed remains unchanged. A historical review of surveillance 
test results and associated maintenance records indicated there was 
no evidence of any failures that would invalidate the above 
conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 TS changes involve a change in the surveillance 
testing intervals to facilitate a change in the operating cycle 
length. The impact of these changes on system availability is not 
significant, based on other more frequent testing that is performed, 
the existence of redundant systems and equipment, and overall system 
reliability. Evaluations have shown there is no evidence of time 
dependent failures that would impact the availability of the 
systems. The proposed changes do not significantly impact the 
condition or performance of structures, systems, and components 
relied upon for accident mitigation. The proposed changes do not 
result in any hardware changes or in any changes to the analytical 
limits assumed in accident analyses. Existing operating margin 
between plant conditions and actual plant setpoints is not 
significantly reduced due to these changes. The proposed changes do 
not significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 
50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (Braidwood), Will County, 
Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 
and 2 (Byron), Ogle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: July 23, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Braidwood and Byron Technical Specifications (TS) to delete the 
limiting condition for operation (LCO) note associated with TS 3.5.3, 
``[Emergency Core Cooling System] ECCS--Shutdown,'' to reflect current 
plant configuration and ensure Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system 
operability meets the TS 3.5.3 LCO requirement.
    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 changes to delete the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note will ensure 
that one train of RHR remains aligned for ECCS mode of operation as 
required to mitigate an accident described in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed changes to not affect 
the design, operational characteristics, and function of the ECCS 
and RHR systems to mitigate a design basis accident (DBA). 
Furthermore, the interfaces between the RHR system and other plants 
systems' operating functions, or the reliability of the RHR system 
are not impacted by the proposed changes. Since the ECCS and RHR 
systems are not accident initiators, the proposed changes do not 
impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed accidents, nor do 
they impact the mitigation of accidents or transient events. 
Therefore, the ECCS and RHR systems will be capable of performing 
their accident mitigation functions, and the proposed deletion of 
the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident.
    The proposed changes will ensure that one train of RHR be 
available for ECCS mode of operation during MODE 4 to ensure that 
the RHR system, as a subsystem of ECCS, is operable for ensuring 
sufficient ECCS flow is available to the core for mitigating the 
consequences of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). Thus, the 
proposed deletion of the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note does not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 deletion of the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note does not change 
the design function or operation of the RHR system components, or 
maintenance activities. The proposed changes do not change or 
introduce any new or different type of equipment, modes of system 
operation, failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators. 
The proposed changes will ensure that one train of ECCS is operable 
to mitigate the consequences of a LOCA as previously assumed in the 
UFSAR.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
    This proposed changes delete the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note will ensure 
that TS 3.5.3 LCO requirements is met to ensure that sufficient ECCS 
flow is available to the core following a DBA, such as a LOCA, as 
described in the UFSAR. The proposed changes will review the 
existing non-conservative TS to reflect current plant configuration 
that the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) temperature must be reduced to 
less than or equal to 200 [deg]F [degrees Fahrenheit] in order to 
eliminate the potential for flashing of hot water within the 
isolated RHR system hot leg suction piping during transfer to the 
ECCS recirculation sump. The proposed changes will ensure the RHR 
system operability to meet TS 3.5.3 LCO requirement and do not 
affect the ability of the RHR system to provide long-term capability 
for core cooling following a LOCA.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendments 
do not involve a significant hazards consideration under the 
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding 
of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No. 50-
440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP), Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: July 3, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify PNPP's Technical Specifications (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [alternating 
current] Sources--Operating.'' Specifically, the proposed amendment 
will modify nine surveillance requirements (SRs) by excluding Division 
2 from the current mode restrictions, thus allowing performance of the 
subject SRs in any mode of plant operation. The proposed amendment also 
deletes expired TS 3.8.1 provisions regarding use of a delayed access 
circuit.

[[Page 67683]]

    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.
    This amendment request proposed to remove MODE restrictions on 
certain Division 3 AC sources surveillance tests, allowing testing 
in any MODE of operation. The Division 3 AC sources, including the 
diesel generator (DG) and its associated emergency loads are 
accident mitigating features, not accident initiators. This proposed 
amendment does not change the design function of the Division 3 AC 
sources, including the DG of any of its required loads, and does not 
change the way the systems and plant are operated or maintained. 
This proposed amendment does not impact any plant systems that are 
accident initiators and does not adversely impact any accident 
mitigating systems.
    The proposed amendment does not affect the operability 
requirements for the AC sources, as verification of such operability 
will continue to be performed as required. Continued verification of 
operability supports the capability of Division 2 AC sources to 
perform their required design functions of providing emergency power 
to high pressure core spray (HPCS) system equipment, consistent with 
the plant safety analyses. Limiting testing to only one AC source at 
a time also ensures that design basis requirements are met. Should a 
fault occur while testing the Division 3 AC sources, there would be 
no significant impact on any accident consequences since Division 1 
and 2 AC sources and their respective emergency loads would be 
available to provide the safety functions necessary to shut down the 
unit and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition.
    Removing the MODE restrictions associated with certain Division 
3 surveillance requirements, this allowing testing to occur in any 
MODE of operation, will not significantly increase the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated because the Division 3 DG and 
its emergency loads are accident mitigation features, not accident 
initiators.
    Removing the MODE restrictions associated with certain Division 
3 surveillance requirements, this allowing testing to occur in any 
MODE of operation, will not change the dose analyses associated with 
the [Updated Safety Analysis Report] USAR Chapter 15 accidents 
because accident mitigation functions and requirements remain 
unchanged.
    This amendment request also proposes to remove temporary TS 
3.8.1 provisions related to the use of the delayed access circuit. 
Effective October 17, 2011, the temporary provisions support plant 
startup and normal operation until the Unit 1 startup transformer 
was returned to service. The provisions expired on December, 12, 
2011, after the Unit 1 startup transformer was returned to service. 
Removing the provisions will not increase the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated since the provisions are no longer 
required or applicable. Removing the provisions will not change any 
of the dose analyses associated with the USAR Chapter 15 accidents 
because accident mitigation functions and requirements remain 
unchanged as a result of the removal. Removing the expired 
provisions does not affect or alter any other aspect of this 
amendment request.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
    This amendment request proposes to remove the MODE restrictions 
associated with certain Division 3 AC sources surveillance 
requirements. The proposed amendment does not change the design 
function of the Division 3 AC sources or any required loads, and 
does not change the way the systems and plant are operated or 
maintained. This proposed amendment does not impact any plan systems 
that are accident initiators and does not adversely impact any 
accident mitigating systems. Performance of these surveillance tests 
in any operating MODE will continue to verify operability of the 
Division 3 AC sources.
    This amendment request also proposes to remove temporary TS 
3.8.1 provisions related to the use of the delayed access circuit. 
Effective October 17, 2011, the temporary provisions support plant 
startup and normal operation until the Unit 1 startup transformer 
was returned to service. The provisions expired on December, 12, 
2011, after the Unit 1 startup transformer was returned to service. 
Removing the provisions will not increase the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated since the provisions are no longer 
required or applicable. Removing the expired provisions does not 
affect or alter any other aspect of this amendment request.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This amendment request proposes to remove the MODE restrictions 
associated with certain Division 2 diesel generator surveillance 
requirements. Margin of safety is related to the ability of the 
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and 
primary containment) to perform their design functions during and 
following postulated accidents. This proposed amendment does not 
involve or affect fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, or the 
primary containment. Performing Division 3 surveillance testing 
online increases the Division 3 DG and HPCS system availability 
during refueling outages and allows the testing to be conducted when 
both Division 1 and 2 systems are required to be OPERABLE, not 
significantly difference than when performed other Division 3 
surveillance tests that do not have similar MODE restrictions.
    This amendment request also proposes to remove temporary TS 
3.8.1 provisions related to the use of the delayed access circuit. 
Effective October 17, 2011, the temporary provisions support plant 
startup and normal operation until the Unit 1 startup transformer 
was returned to service. The provisions expired on December, 12, 
2011, after the Unit 1 startup transformer was returned to service. 
Removing the provisions will not increase the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated since the provisions are no longer 
required or applicable. Removing the expired provisions does not 
affect or alter any other aspect of this amendment request. When 
they were effective, the provisions did not involve fuel cladding, 
reactor coolant system, or the primary containment. Removing the 
provisions does not involve or affect fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system, or the primary containment. The proposed amendment does not 
involve a physical change to the plant, methods of plant operation, 
or maintenance of equipment important to safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in any 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, FENOC concludes that the proposed amendment 
does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the 
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding 
of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.

    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 
requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop. A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.

Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, 
Texas

    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2012, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 23, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.7.1, entitled ``High Radiation Areas 
with Dose Rates not Exceeding 1.0 rem [roentgen equivalent man]/hour at 
30 Centimeters from the Radiation Source or from any Surface Penetrated 
by the Radiation,'' and 5.7.2, entitled ``High Radiation Areas with 
Dose Rates Greater than 1.0 rem/hour at 30 Centimeters

[[Page 67684]]

from the Radiation Source or from any Surface Penetrated by the 
Radiation, but less than 500 rads/hour at 1 Meter from the Radiation 
Source or from any Surface Penetrated by the Radiation,'' to allow 
entry into high radiation areas by personnel continuously escorted by 
individuals qualified in radiation protection procedures as long as the 
escorted personnel receive a pre-job briefing prior to entry into such 
areas . In addition, the amendment would incorporate an unrelated 
editorial change to TS Table 3.3.3-1, ``Post Accident Monitoring 
Instrumentation.'' The title for the TS Table 3.3.1-1 column 
``CONDITION REFERENCED FROM REQUIRED ACTION E.1,'' will be corrected to 
read, ``CONDITION REFERENCED FROM REQUIRED ACTION D.1,'' to be 
consistent with Required Actions for Condition D of TS 3.3.3.
    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.
    The proposed change to the Technical Specifications has no 
impact on accident initiation or mitigation. Therefore, the proposed 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    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 change to the Technical Specifications has no 
impact on accident initiation or mitigation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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 change to the Technical Specifications has no 
impact on accident initiation or mitigation. The proposed change 
will allow for the positive radiation protection control of 
activities in High Radiation Areas. This is consistent with the 
requirements of [10 CFR 20.1601(a)] and [10 CFR 20.1601(c)].
    Therefore the proposed change does not involve a 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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and 
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
relocate Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition of Operation 
(LCO) 2.17, Miscellaneous Radioactive Material Sources, and the 
associated surveillance requirement (SR) 3.13, Radioactive Material 
Sources Surveillance, from the TSs. NUREG-1432, Revision 3, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants,'' June 2004 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML041830597), does not contain a TS or SR for 
radioactive sources surveillance. The operability and surveillance 
requirements for leak checking of miscellaneous radioactive material 
sources will be incorporated into the Fort Calhoun Station Updated 
Safety Analysis Report and associated plant procedures.
    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.
    Miscellaneous radioactive sources are not part of any transient 
or accident analysis.
    The proposed changes conform to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's (NRC's) regulatory guidance regarding the content of 
plant TS as identified in 10 CFR 50.36 and NRC publication NUREG-
1432.
    Therefore, the proposed change 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 change relocates the requirements for leak checking 
miscellaneous radioactive material sources to a licensee controlled 
document subject to the controls of 10 CFR 50.59. This change does 
not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis 
assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. Hence, the 
proposed change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor 
does it reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant 
structure or system in the performance of their safety function.
    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 change relocates the requirements for leak checking 
miscellaneous radioactive material sources to a licensee controlled 
document subject to the controls of 10 CFR 50.59. This change does 
not alter any safety margins.
    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 A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil 
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, 
South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 26, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos.: NPF-93 and NPF-94 for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, respectively, by improving the 
translation of Tier 2 Information into Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 Definition of 
Wall Thicknesses for Nuclear Island Buildings, Turbine Building, and 
Annex Building for technical consistency, clarity, and completeness. 
This change is identified as an administrative change. There will be no 
design changes based on the improved translation of Tier 2 information.
    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.

[[Page 67685]]

    Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C) 
Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency, clarity 
and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-specific DCD 
Tier 2 change. The changes do not affect the prevention and 
mitigation of any abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated 
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, 
or their safety or design analyses. The probabilistic risk 
assessment (plant-specific DCD Chapter 19) is not affected. No 
safety-related or nonsafety-related structure, system, component 
(SSC) or function is affected. The Tier 1 changes do not affect any 
SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, 
the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific 
DCD or UFSAR are not affected. Because the changes do not involve 
any safety-related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident, the 
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific DCD or 
UFSAR are not affected.
    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.
    Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C) 
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency, 
clarity and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-
specific DCD Tier 2 change. No fire, design or safety analysis is 
affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification 
will be affected by the changes. The changes do not result in a new 
failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect 
safety or safety-related equipment. This activity will not allow for 
a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product 
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that would 
result in significant fuel cladding failures.
    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.
    Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C) 
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency, 
clarity and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-
specific DCD Tier 2 change. No fire, design or safety analysis is 
affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification 
will be affected by the changes. The Table 3.3-1 building wall, roof 
and floor changes are only descriptive. The requested changes will 
not affect any safety-related equipment, design code, function, 
design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety 
margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is involved by the requested changes, thus, no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Mark E. Tonacci.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 21, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos.: NPF-91 and NPF-92 for VEGP Units 3 and 4, 
respectively, by improving the translation of Tier 2 Information into 
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 Definition of Wall Thicknesses for Nuclear Island 
Buildings, Turbine Building, and Annex Building for technical 
consistency, clarity, and completeness. This change is identified as an 
administrative change. There will be no design changes based on the 
improved translation of Tier 2 information.
    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.
    Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C) 
Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency, clarity 
and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-specific DCD 
Tier 2 change. The changes do not affect the prevention and 
mitigation of any abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated 
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, 
or their safety or design analyses. The probabilistic risk 
assessment (plant-specific DCD Chapter 19) is not affected. No 
safety-related or nonsafety-related structure, system, component 
(SSC) or function is affected. The Tier 1 changes do not affect any 
SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, 
the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific 
DCD or UFSAR are not affected. Because the changes do not involve 
any safety-related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident, the 
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific DCD or 
UFSAR are not affected.
    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.
    Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C) 
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency, 
clarity and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-
specific DCD Tier 2 change. No fire, design or safety analysis is 
affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification 
will be affected by the changes. The changes do not result in a new 
failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect 
safety or safety-related equipment.
    This activity will not allow for a new fission product release 
path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or 
create a new sequence of events that would result in significant 
fuel cladding failures.
    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.
    Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C) 
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency, 
clarity and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-
specific DCD Tier 2 change. No fire, design or safety analysis is 
affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification 
will be affected by the changes. The Table 3.3-1 building wall, roof 
and floor changes are only descriptive. The requested changes will 
not affect any safety-related equipment, design code, function, 
design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety 
margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is involved by the requested changes, thus, no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    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.

[[Page 67686]]

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

    Date of amendment request: July 19, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) hydrologic 
analysis and results, including the design based flood (DBF) elevations 
required to be considered in the flood protection of safety-related 
systems, structures, or components (SSC) during external flooding 
events, and verify the adequacy of the warning time for both rainfall 
and seismically induced dam failure floods. The proposed changes 
include updated input information and methodology, which includes the 
use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Modeling System and 
River Analysis System software and temporary flood barriers to prevent 
overtopping of earthen embankments. As a result of these proposed 
changes, DBF elevations at the WBN Unit 1 site are revised. These 
changes are determined to impact existing flooding protection 
requirements for several WBN Unit 1 SSCs, which include the Thermal 
Barrier Booster (TBB) pump motors and Essential Raw Cooling Water 
(ERCW) equipment required for flood mode operation located in the 
Intake Pumping Station (IPS). To restore margin for the TBB pump 
motors, a temporary flood protection barrier has been designed to be 
installed around them prior to a Stage I flood warning; for the ERCW 
equipment, a compensatory measure of staged sandbags to be constructed 
into a berm at the IPS at any time prior to or during a Stage I flood 
warning has been implemented. Permanent plant modifications are planned 
to restore or gain additional margin.
    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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Although the proposed changes require some physical changes to 
plant systems, structures, or components to add flood protection 
features to restore or gain additional margin between the revised 
DBF elevations and limiting safety-related systems, structures, and 
components; they do not (1) prevent the safety function of any 
safety-related system, structure, or component during an external 
flood; (2) alter, degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in 
any accident described in the WBN Unit 1 UFSAR from being performed 
since the safety-related systems, structures, or components remain 
adequately protected from the effects of external floods, 
considering the temporary compensatory measures in place and upon 
completion of planned permanent plant modifications; (3) alter any 
assumptions previously made in evaluating radiological consequences; 
or (4) affect the integrity of any fission product barrier.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident causal 
mechanisms, nor do they impact any plant systems that are potential 
accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design, 
including instrument set points, that is the basis of the 
assumptions contained in the safety analyses. However, permanent 
plant modifications are planned to restore or gain additional margin 
between the revised DBF elevations and limiting safety-related 
systems, structures, and components. Although the results of the 
updated hydrologic analysis increase the DBF elevations required to 
be considered in the flood protection of safety-related systems, 
structures, or components during external flooding events, the 
proposed changes do not prevent any safety-related systems, 
structures, or components from performing their required functions 
during an external flood considering the temporary compensatory 
measures in place and upon completion of planned permanent plant 
modifications. Consistent with existing regulatory guidance 
including regulatory recommendations and discussions regarding 
calibration of hydrology models using historical flood data and 
consideration of sensitivity analyses, the hydrologic analysis is 
considered to be a reasonable best estimate that has accounted for 
uncertainties using the best data available.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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 https://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

[[Page 67687]]

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

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: October 13, 2011, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 25, 2011, January 18, 2012, April 3, 2012, May 
22, 2012 and July 17, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.7.4, Table 3.7-3, ``Ultimate Heat Sink Minimum 
Fan Requirements per Train,'' to account for replacement steam 
generators and an inappropriate analysis methodology.
    Date of issuance: October 31, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 237.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 17, 2012 (77 FR 
22813). The supplemental letters dated November 25, 2011, January 18, 
2012, April 3, 2012, May 22, 2012, and July 17, 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 Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, 
Texas

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam 
Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 5.6.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 
Model D5 Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to permanently 
exclude portions of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Unit 
2, Model D5 SG tube below the top of the SG tubesheet from periodic SG 
tube inspections and to provide permanent reporting requirements 
specific to CPNPP, Unit 2. The proposed alternate repair criteria would 
replace similar, interim criteria for CPNPP, Unit 2, that was 
applicable during Refueling Outage 12 (spring of 2011) and the 
subsequent (current) operating cycle approved by NRC by letter dated 
April 6, 2011.
    Date of issuance: October 18, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to MODE 4 entry during startup from Unit 2 Refueling Outage 13.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-158; Unit 2-158.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 12, 2012 (77 FR 
35074).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 18, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: February 17, 2011, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 21, 2011, February 27, 2012, and 
July 2, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.7.1, ``Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs),'' Table 
3.7.1-1, ``Maximum Allowable Power Range Neutron Flux High Setpoint 
with Inoperable MSSVs,'' to remove a one-time note specific to DCPP, 
Unit 2 for Cycle 15, which is no longer applicable or needed. The 
licensee also proposed to revise the TS Bases, applicable to DCPP, 
Units 1 and 2, to reflect a new analysis methodology for establishing 
the reduced power range neutron flux high setpoint for one inoperable 
MSSV as listed in TS Table 3.7.1-1. By letter dated April 21, 2011, the 
licensee clarified that the proposed revision to the TS Bases is a 
revision to the FSARU Sections 15.2.7.3, ``Results,'' and 15.2.16, 
``References.''
    Date of issuance: October 31, 2012.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance. Implementation of the 
amendments shall also include revision of the Final Safety Analysis 
Report Update as described in the licensee's letter dated April 21, 
2011.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--212; Unit 2--214.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR 
28475). The supplemental letters dated April 21, 2011, February 27, 
2012, and July 2, 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 Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 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: August 1, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Vogtle 
Units 3 and 4 plant-specific design control document Tier 2* 
information by revising the details associated with the nuclear island 
basemat concrete and reinforcement bar.
    Date of issuance: October 18, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 3-1, and Unit 4-1.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 21, 2012 (77 FR 
50538).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 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: April 6, 2012 and revised on April 12 
and May 7, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Vogtle 
Units 3 and 4 plant-specific design control document Tier 2* 
information by revising the upper tolerance on the Nuclear Island (NI) 
critical sections basemat thickness as identified in the plant specific 
design control document.
    Date of issuance: October 25, 2012.

[[Page 67688]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 3-2, and Unit 4-2.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 12, 2012 (77 FR 
35076).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 25, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: May 23, 2012, supplemented by 
letter dated August 23, 2012 (TS-SQN-12-01).
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3/4.8.1 to include a surveillance requirement to 
demonstrate the required offsite circuits OPERABLE at least once per 18 
months by manually and automatically transferring the power supply to a 
6.9 KiloVolt unit board from the normal supply to the alternate supply. 
This change is necessary as a result of the planned modifications to 
the plant design and operating configuration that will allow use of the 
unit station service transformers as a power supply to an offsite 
circuit.
    Date of issuance: October 31, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup from Unit 2 fall 2012 refueling outage.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-332 and Unit 2-325.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments 
revised the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 24, 2012 (76 FR 
43379). The supplement letter dated August 23, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st 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. 2012-27384 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P