Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 64541-64553 [2013-25394]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64541-64553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25394]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0233]


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 to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from September 19, 2013, to October 2, 2013. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 1, 2013 (78 FR 60321). 
Due to the Federal Government shutdown, there was no biweekly 
publication on October 15, 2013.

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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0233. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; 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, 06-44M, 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-2013-0233 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this action by the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0233.
     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-2013-0233 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 you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://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

[[Page 64542]]

(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 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 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

[[Page 64543]]

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

Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket Nos. 50-409 and 72-046, La Crosse 
Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR), La Crosse County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: August 6, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change the LACBWR Emergency Plan. Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) 
proposes removal of the various emergency actions related to the former 
spent fuel pool, the transfer of responsibility for implementing the 
Emergency Plan to the Security Shift Supervisors at the Independent 
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), a revised emergency plan 
organization, removal of the fire brigade, and abandonment of the 
Control Room consistent with the current state of decommissioning.
    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.
    DPC has in effect an NRC-approved E-Plan. There are no longer 
credible events that would result in doses to the public beyond

[[Page 64544]]

the owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs. 
LACBWR was shutdown 25 years ago. Emergency Planning Zones beyond 
the owner controlled area and the associated protective actions are 
no longer required. No headquarters personnel, personnel involved in 
off-site dose projections, or personnel with special qualifications 
are required to augment the LACBWR Emergency Response Organization. 
The credible events for the ISFSI remain unchanged. The indications 
of damage to a loaded cask confinement boundary have been revised to 
be twice the technical specification limit for contact dose. This 
change is consistent with industry practices previously approved by 
the NRC for other ISFSIs to be able to distinguish that a degraded 
condition exists.
    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.
    DPC has in effect an NRC-approved E-Plan. There are no longer 
credible events that would result in doses to the public beyond the 
owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs. 
LACBWR was shutdown 25 years ago. Emergency Planning Zones beyond 
the owner controlled area and the associated protective actions are 
no longer required. No headquarters personnel, personnel involved in 
off-site dose projections, or personnel with special qualifications 
are required to augment the LACBWR Emergency Response Organization. 
The advanced state of decommissioning is reflected in the updated 
and revised ODCM [Offsite Dose Calculation Manual] which shows that 
there are no longer any events at the former plant that could exceed 
the EPA PAGs for dose to a member of the public.
    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.
    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. DPC has in effect an NRC-approved E-Plan. 
There are no longer credible events that would result in doses to 
the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would 
exceed the EPA PAGs. LACBWR was shutdown 25 years ago. Emergency 
Planning Zones beyond the owner controlled area and the associated 
protective actions are no longer required. No headquarters 
personnel, personnel involved in offsite dose projections, or 
personnel with special qualifications are required to augment the 
LACBWR Emergency Response Organization. The advanced state of 
decommissioning is reflected in the updated and revised ODCM which 
shows that there are no longer any events at the former plant that 
could exceed the EPA PAGs for dose to a member of the public.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in 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. Thomas Zaremba, Wheeler, Van Sickle and 
Anderson, Suite 801, 25 West Main Street, Madison, WI 53703-3398.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: July 25, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change the Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.4, ``Control Room Air 
Conditioning (AC) System,'' requirements by revising the Required 
Action and associated Completion Time for two inoperable control room 
air conditioning subsystems. The proposed changes are consistent with 
NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-477, Revision 3. 
The availability of this TS improvement was published in the Federal 
Register on March 26, 2007 (72 FR 14143), as part of the consolidated 
line item improvement process (CLIIP).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), Energy Northwest 
affirmed the applicability of the proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC) determination published in the Federal Register as 
part of the CLlIP (71 FR 75774; December 18, 2006), which is presented 
below:

Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change is described in Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-477 adds an action 
statement for two inoperable control room subsystems.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
The proposed changes add an action statement for two inoperable 
control room subsystems. The equipment qualification temperature of 
the control room equipment is not affected. Future changes to the 
Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to 
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, test and experiments,'' 
to ensure that such changes do not result in more than a minimal 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to 
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types 
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated

    The proposed changes add an action statement for two inoperable 
control room subsystems. The changes do not involve a physical 
altering of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed) or a change in methods governing normal plant 
operation. The requirements in the TS continue to require 
maintaining the control room temperature within the design limits.
    Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety

    The proposed changes add an action statement for two inoperable 
control room subsystems. Instituting the proposed changes will 
continue to maintain the control room temperature within design 
limits. Changes to the Bases or license controlled document are 
performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an 
effective level of regulatory control and ensures that the control 
room temperature will be maintained within design limits.
    The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls to preserve 
the current margins of safety.
    Based upon the reasoning above, the NRC staff concludes that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) 
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.

[[Page 64545]]

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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, Unit 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

    Date of amendment request: August 2, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the technical specification definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' 
(SDM) to require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator 
temperature of 68 [deg]F or a higher temperature that represents the 
most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This change is 
needed to address new Boiling Water Reactor fuel designs that may be 
more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68[deg]F.
    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:

    EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] has evaluated whether or 
not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the 
proposed amendments by focusing on the three standards set forth in 
10 CFR 50.92, ``Issuance of amendment,'' as discussed 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 the definition of SDM. SDM is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the 
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents 
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences of 
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM 
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel 
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed 
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in 
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or 
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types 
at all times during the fuel cycle.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed change 
presents no 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 Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac 
County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: June 4, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The license amendment request 
proposes to revise the technical specifications (TS) to allow the use 
of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel rod cladding material. The proposed change 
would revise TS 5.3.1 to add Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ to the approved fuel 
rod cladding materials and TS 6.9.1.7 to add Westinghouse Electric 
Company LLC topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-
A, ``Optimized ZIRLO\TM\,'' to the analytical methods used to determine 
the core operating limits.
    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 would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ 
clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC approved topical report 
WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, ``Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\,'' prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC 
(Westinghouse), which addresses Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ and demonstrates 
that Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ has essentially the same properties as 
currently licensed ZIRLO[supreg]. The fuel cladding itself is not an 
accident initiator and does not affect accident probability. Use of 
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel cladding will continue to meet all 10 CFR 
50.46 acceptance criteria and, therefore, will not increase the 
consequences of an accident.
    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.
    Use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ clad fuel will not result in changes 
in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical Report 
WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, ``Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\,'' demonstrated that the material properties of Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\ are similar to those of standard ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore, 
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel rod cladding will perform similarly to the 
cladding fabricated from standard ZIRLO[supreg], thus precluding the 
possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a 
new or different type of accident.
    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 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the 
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ are not significantly 
different from those of standard ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ 
is expected to perform similarly to standard ZIRLO[supreg] for all 
normal operating and accident scenarios, including both loss of 
coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA

[[Page 64546]]

scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, the slight difference in Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\ material properties relative to standard ZIRLO\TM\ could 
have some impact on the overall accident scenario. However, all 
acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 are satisfied, 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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra 
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-
0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

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 amendments request: February 7, 2013, and revised on July 
19, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by 
departing from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 
(and corresponding Combined License Appendix C information) and Tier 2 
material by reconciling various valve descriptions and definitions in 
Tier 1 and Tier 2. This is being done to promote consistency within the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the licensee 
also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD 
Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not result in any physical changes to 
the plant, and therefore do not change any safety-related design 
requirement, qualification requirement or function. The proposed 
changes do not involve any accident initiating event or component 
failure, thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously 
evaluated are not affected. The proposed changes do not affect the 
radioactive material releases used in the accident analyses, thus, 
the radiological releases in the accident analyses 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 changes do not result in any physical changes to 
the plant, and therefore do not adversely affect any structure, 
system or component. No safety-related equipment qualification or 
design function is affected. The proposed changes do not introduce a 
new failure mode or create a new fault or sequence of events that 
could 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 changes do not result in any physical changes to 
the plant, and therefore do not change valve performance, including 
containment isolation. No safety acceptance criterion would be 
exceeded or challenged. No safety-related function would be 
affected. Valve qualification would not be affected. The proposed 
changes do not affect compliance 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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: July 23, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Fire Protection Program (FPP) 
(incorporated in to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report by 
reference) related to the alternate shutdown capability in accordance 
with license condition 2.E of the Facility Operating Licenses. 
Specifically, STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) proposes to credit 
the following manual operator actions in the control room prior to 
evacuation due to a fire for meeting the alternate shutdown capability, 
in addition to manually tripping the reactor that is currently credited 
in the STP, Units 1 and 2, FPP licensing basis:
     Initiate main steam line isolation
     Closing the pressurizer power-operated relief valves block 
valves
     Securing all reactor coolant pumps
     Closing feedwater isolation valves
     Securing the startup feedwater pump
     Isolating reactor coolant system (RCS) letdown
     Securing the centrifugal charging pumps
    In addition, STPNOC proposes to credit the automatic trip of the 
main turbine upon the initiation of a manual reactor trip for meeting 
the alternate shutdown capability. A thermal-hydraulic analysis 
demonstrates that these operations will ensure that the RCS process 
variables remain within those values predicted for a loss of normal 
alternating current (a-c) power, as required by Section III.L.1 of 10 
CFR part 50, appendix R.
    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 credits operations in the control room prior 
to evacuation in the event of a fire in order to meet safe shutdown 
performance criteria. The design function of structures, systems and 
components (SSC) are not impacted by the proposed change. The 
proposed change will not initiate an event. The proposed change does 
not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs from performing their 
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating 
event. The proposed change does not increase the probability of 
occurrence of a fire or any other accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed operations are feasible and reliable and 
demonstrate that the unit can be safely [shut down] in the event of 
a fire with no significant increase in consequences.
    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

[[Page 64547]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change credits operations in the control room prior 
to evacuation in the event of a fire in order to meet safe shutdown 
performance criteria. The proposed change does not install or remove 
any plant equipment. The proposed change does not alter the design, 
physical configuration, or mode of operation of any plant structure, 
system or component. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
introduce any new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can 
initiate an accident.
    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 credits operations in the control room prior 
to evacuation in the event of a fire in order to meet safe shutdown 
performance criteria. The proposed change has no effect on the 
availability, operability, or performance of safety-related systems 
and components. The proposed change does not alter the design, 
configuration, operation, or function of any plant structure, system 
or component. The ability of any structure, system or component to 
perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the proposed 
change.
    Thermal-hydraulic analyses demonstrate that the proposed 
operations to be performed in the control room will ensure that the 
reactor coolant system process variables remain within those values 
predicted for a loss of normal a-c power, as required by section 
III.L of 10 CFR part 50, appendix R. After control of the plant is 
achieved by the alternative shutdown system, the plant can be safely 
transitioned to cold shutdown conditions. A single fire-induced 
spurious actuation will not negate the proposed operations.
    Considerable fire protection defense-in-depth features exist 
such that it is unlikely that a fire in the control room would 
result in evacuation. In the remote likelihood that control room 
evacuation is required and none of the proposed operator actions 
other than the manual reactor trip and automatic turbine trip are 
performed prior to arrival at the alternative shutdown stations, 
analyses confirm that adequate core cooling is maintained so that 
fuel cladding integrity is not challenged. The capability to achieve 
and maintain safe shutdown is maintained.
    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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 1, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 
(LCO) for the Alternating Current Sources Operating in LCO 3.8.1, 
provide additional time to restore an inoperable offsite circuit, 
modify Surveillance Requirement 3.8.1.8, and modify the current 
licensing basis, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR), for the available maintenance feeder for the Common 
Station Service Transformers (CSSTs) A and B. The proposed license 
amendment request credits upgrades made to CSST A and B to provide two 
new sources of preferred Class 1 E power supply feeds in addition to 
the two normal Class 1 E power supply feeds. The TS change is needed to 
support dual unit operations without requiring a dual unit shutdown 
during maintenance on either preferred power CSST C or D. This proposed 
request also achieves licensing basis commonality for the current 
Operating WBN Unit 1 license with respect to those approved elements of 
the WBN Unit 2 application as docketed in NUREG-0847, Supplements 22 
and 24.
    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.
    The proposed changes described in this TS amendment request, do 
not alter the safety functions of the WBN Offsite Power system. 
Design calculations document that CSSTs A and B have adequate 
capacity to supply all connected loads including one train of 
shutdown boards in all allowable alignments and meet the separation 
requirements for offsite power sources. The consequences of an 
accident are not changed when using CSST A or B to power the 
shutdown boards because these CSSTs are rated to carry all required 
loads for any design basis accidents. The failure of a CSST is not 
considered to be an initiator of a plant accident and therefore the 
probability or consequences of accidents or events previously 
evaluated, as described in the UFSAR, is not changed.
    Therefore, this 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.
    As stated above, malfunctions of the CSSTs are not considered to 
be an initiator for plant accidents and the modifications to the 
offsite power system do not create a new or different kind of 
accident. The purpose of the offsite power system is to provide a 
source of power to the safety related equipment required to mitigate 
a design basis accident. CSSTs A and B have been physically upgraded 
and proven by design calculation to meet all required GDC [General 
Design Criterion] 17 requirements for separation and voltage 
stability. Using CSSTs A and B as alternate sources of shutdown 
power does not negatively affect the offsite power systems ability 
to meet its design function.
    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.
    CSSTs A and B have adequate design margin to meet all possible 
loading scenarios as long as both CSSTs A and B are operational 
prior to one being used as a source of offsite power. This 
requirement is added to the control room drawings, plant design 
criteria and the UFSAR in order to ensure acceptable margin is 
always available prior to CSSTs A or B being used as a source of 
offsite power.
    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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-339, North Anna 
Power Station, Unit 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: September 10, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 
No. ML13260A256) requests the changes to the Technical Specification 
(TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-Operating.'' TS 3.8.1 contains Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8, which requires verification of the

[[Page 64548]]

capability to manually transfer Unit 1, 4.16 kV ESF bus AC power 
sources from the normal offsite circuit to the alternate required 
offsite circuit and this surveillance is only applicable to Unit 1. 
Dominion is developing a plant modification to install an alternate 
offsite power feed to each of the two 4.16 kV ESF buses for Unit 2, 
such that it will be similar to the Unit 1 design. Therefore, the 
proposed change would delete Note 1 to SR 3.8.1.8 to remove the 
limitation that excludes Unit 2 and will be consistent with the 
verification currently performed for Unit 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The previously evaluated accident that could be affected is a 
complete loss of offsite power (LOOP). Analyses have been performed 
to confirm that power distribution system voltages and currents with 
both of the new Unit 2 alternate normal to emergency bus ties in 
service are adequate during a unit trip scenario. The conditions 
under which the Unit 2 manual transfer capability is verified are 
the same as Unit 1. The verification test may only be performed 
under conditions that will not challenge steady state operation or 
challenge the safety of the unit. Therefore, the Unit 2 verification 
test (manual transfer between Unit 2 normal offsite circuit and 
alternate required offsite circuit) will not significantly increase 
the probability of a LOOP.
    Should a LOOP occur, the consequences are unaffected by 
availability of offsite power (normal offsite circuit and alternate 
required offsite circuit). Therefore, the Unit 2 verification test 
(normal offsite circuit and alternate required offsite circuit) will 
not affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The purpose of the surveillance test is to verify the capability 
to manually transfer AC power sources from the normal offsite 
circuit to the alternate required offsite circuit.
    The only effect of the change is to permit the new Unit 2 
required offsite circuits to be tested in the same manner and 
frequency as the corresponding Unit 1 circuits. Since the Unit 2 
circuits are similar to the Unit 1 circuits, and the Unit 1 test is 
a required TS Surveillance to demonstrate operability of the 
alternate offsite circuits, permitting the Unit 2 circuits to 
undergo the same surveillance test will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change enables SR testing of the new Unit 2 
alternate offsite AC circuits to verify the capability to manually 
transfer AC power sources from the normal offsite circuit to the 
alternate required offsite circuit as is performed in Unit 1.
    The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident situation and the ability of the 
ECCS to provide adequate core cooling. These barriers include the 
fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment 
system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers, 
nor does it involve any adverse impact on the Class 1E circuits or 
SSCs supplied by Class 1E power. In fact, it enhances the ability to 
power the required ECCS equipment during accident conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed change will 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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.

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: August 12, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments revise 
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 4.4.B, 
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Requirements,'' by replacing the 
reference to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163 with a reference to Nuclear 
Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, as the 
implementation document used to develop the Surry performance-based 
leakage testing program in accordance with Option B of 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix J.
    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 amendment involves changes to the Surry Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program. The proposed amendment does not 
involve a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in 
which the plant is operated or controlled. The primary containment 
function is to provide an essentially leak-tight barrier against the 
uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for 
postulated accidents. As such, the containment itself and the 
testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of 
the containment do not involve any accident precursors or 
initiators. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed 
amendment.
    The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 
94-01, Revision 3-A, for development of the Surry Power Station 
Units 1 and 2 performance-based containment testing program. 
Implementation of these guidelines continues to provide adequate 
assurance that during design basis accidents, the primary 
containment and its components will limit leakage rates to less than 
the values assumed in the plant safety analyses. The potential 
consequences of extending the ILRT interval to 15 years have been 
evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes in risk. The increase 
in risk in terms of person-rem per year within 50 miles resulting 
from design basis accidents was estimated to be acceptably small and 
determined to be within the guidelines published in, RG 1.174. 
Additionally, the proposed change maintains defense-in-depth by 
preserving a reasonable balance among prevention of core damage, 
prevention of containment failure, and consequence mitigation. 
Dominion has determined that the increase in Conditional Containment 
Failure Probability due to the proposed change would be very small. 
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does not 
significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that 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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 
94-01, Revision 3-A, for the development of the Surry performance-
based leakage testing program and establishes a 15-year interval for 
the performance of the containment ILRT. The containment and the 
testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of 
the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident and do not involve any accident 
precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a 
physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed) and does not

[[Page 64549]]

change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.
    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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 
94-01, Revision 3-A, for the development of the Surry performance-
based leakage testing program and establishes a 15-year interval for 
the performance of the containment ILRT. This amendment does not 
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The 
specific requirements and conditions of the Containment Leakage Rate 
Testing Program, as defined in the TS, ensure that the degree of 
primary containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is 
considered in the plant's safety analysis is maintained. The overall 
containment leakage rate limit specified by the TS is maintained, 
and the Type A, Type B, and Type C containment leakage tests will be 
performed at the frequencies established in accordance with the NRC-
accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Containment 
inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve 
to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment will not 
degrade in a manner that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk 
assessment using the current Surry PRA model concluded that 
extending the ILRT test interval from ten years to 15 years results 
in a very small change to the Surry risk profile.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, Dominion concludes that the proposed 
amendment presents no 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 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resource 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 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 staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: September 25, 2012, as 
supplemented by letters dated June 12, and August 8, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise selected 
atmospheric relative concentration values ([chi]/Q) for use in Control 
Room radiological dose analysis that were withdrawn during McGuire's 
request for full scope implementation of the Alternate Source Term 
(AST). The licensee withdrew the release points due to the source-to-
receptor distances being less than 10 meters and needing to be 
addressed on a case-by-case basis. McGuire received NRC's approval for 
full scope implementation of AST on March 31, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML090890627). The purpose of this amendment is for the NRC to review 
and approve the licensee's withdrawn [chi]/Q values on a case-by-case 
basis. The licensee will make the necessary changes to the updated 
final safety analysis report (UFSAR) in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.71(e).
    Date of issuance: September 23, 2013.
    Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of its 
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 271 and 251.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses and UFSAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 5, 2013 (78 FR 
8199). The supplements dated June 12, and August 8, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 23, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendment: September 9, 2011, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 8, and November 23, 2010; March 
9, April 21, May 3, and November 21, 2011; April 18, October 1, and 
October 22, 2012; and July 2, September 5, and September 16, 2013. The 
letters dated September 8, and November 23, 2010, and March 9, April 
21, and May 3, 2011, are incorporated by reference in the September 2, 
2011, license amendment request (LAR) as allowed by 10 CFR 50.32, 
``Elimination of replication.''
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves: 1) 
additional requirements for the spent fuel and new fuel storage racks 
in TS 4.3.1,

[[Page 64550]]

``Criticality''; 2) a revision to the current Nuclear Criticality 
Safety Analysis, which is described in the GGNS Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report Sections 9.1.1, ``New Fuel Storage,'' and 9.1.2, 
``Spent Fuel Storage,'' to reflect changes resulting from the extended 
power uprate; and 3) deletion of the spent fuel pool loading criteria 
Operating License condition.
    Date of issuance: September 25, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 195.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 24, 2012 (77 FR 
3511). The supplemental letters dated September 8, and November 23, 
2010; March 9, April 21, May 3, and November 21, 2011; April 18, 
October 1, and October 22, 2012; and July 2, September 5, and September 
16, 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 September 25, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendment: September 14, 2012, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 17, 2012, and July 29, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the 
methodology in the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (USFAR) for postulating single passive failures of the 
Standby Service Water (SSW) system following a loss-of-coolant accident 
(LOCA). The revised methodology considers a limited size piping break 
in the SSW system during the first 24 hours following a LOCA, and 
consider only pump and valve seal leakage after more than 24 hours. The 
licensee will include the revised information in the UFSAR in the next 
periodic update in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).
    Date of issuance: September 25, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 196.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and the UFSAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 5, 2013 (78 FR 
8199). The supplemental letter dated July 29, 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 September 25, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-315, Donald C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: October 7, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 8, and October 9, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.6.9, ``Distributed Ignition System (DIS),'' to 
allow Train B of the DIS to be considered operable with two inoperable 
ignitors. The existing TS defines train operability as having no more 
than one ignitor inoperable. The amendment also allows one of five 
specific primary containment regions to have zero ignitors operable. 
The existing TS requires that at least one ignitor be operable in each 
region. The proposed TS revision is applicable until the fall 2014 
refueling outage, or until the unit enters a mode that allows 
replacement of the affected ignitors without exposing personnel to 
significant radiation and safety hazards.
    Date of issuance: October 9, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 1 day.
    Amendment No.: 321.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-58: Amendment revises 
the Technical Specifications and License.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC):
    No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated October 9, 
2013.
    Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

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: December 19, 2012, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 16, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--
Operating,'' to revise the Completion Time (CT) for Required Action 
A.3, ``Restore required offsite circuit to OPERABLE status,'' on a one-
time basis from 72 hours to 14 days for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power 
Plant, Units 1 and 2. The CT extension from 72 hours to 14 days will be 
used twice while completing the plant modification to install alternate 
startup transformer (ST) XST1A and will expire on March 31, 2014. After 
completion of this modification, if ST XST1 should require maintenance 
or if failure occurs, the alternate ST XST1A can be aligned to the 
Class 1E buses well within the current CT of 72 hours. Installation of 
alternate ST will result in improved plant design and will improve the 
long-term reliability of the 138 kiloVolt offsite circuit ST.
    Date of issuance: September 18, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--160; Unit 2--160.
    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: March 4, 2013 (78 FR 
14131). The supplemental letter dated May 16, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 64551]]

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Docket No. 50-
184, Center for Neutron Research (NBSR), Montgomery County, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2012, as supplemented on May 
14, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendments would 
revise NIST NBSR's Technical Specifications, Sections 3.7, 4.7, and 
6.8, pertaining to the environmental monitoring requirements and 
records retention which clarifies environmental sampling procedure and 
record retention processes.
    Date of issuance: September 24, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 9.
    Facility Operating License No. TR-5: Amendment revised the Renewed 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR 
38083). The supplemental letter dated May 14, 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 September 24, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC., Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of application for amendment: November 13, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the DAEC 
renewed facility operating license condition (RFOLC) C.12 to: (1) 
Clarify that the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) 
supplement had been supplemented by Appendix A of NUREG-1955, ``Safety 
Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Duane Arnold Energy 
Center,'' dated November 2010, as supplemented by letter from the 
licensee to the NRC dated November 23, 2010,'' (2) replace ``future 
activities to be completed prior to and/or during'' with ``programs to 
be implemented and activities to be completed before,'' (3) included 
the requirement to implement new programs and enhancements to existing 
programs no later than February 21, 2014, (4) include the requirement 
to complete activities no later than February 21, 2014, and (5) include 
the requirement to notify the NRC within 30 days of having completed 
the activities. Date of issuance: October 7, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 287.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or 
requirements and changes the format of the license or otherwise makes 
editorial, corrective or other minor revisions.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 16, 2013 (78 FR 
22571). The supplemental information dated May 28, 2013, and October 
1st, 2013, contained clarifying information, did not change the scope 
of the November 13, 2012, application on the initial no significant 
hazards consideration determination, and does not expand the scope of 
the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Fairfield County, 
South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 24, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes the 
licensee to revise Appendix B, ``Technical Specifications'' of Combined 
Licenses NPF-91 and NPF-92 in order to improve operator usability by 
more closely aligning with the form and content of Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Writer's Guide for Plant-Specific 
Improved Technical Specifications, TSTF-GG-05-01, Revision 1, and with 
NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants as 
updated by NRC approved generic changes.
    Date of issuance: September 9, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 3-13, and Unit 4-13.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses and Appendix B to the combined 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 29, 2012 (77 FR 
31662).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-
348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston 
County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: January 23, 2013, as supplemented July 
17, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
following Technical Specifications: 3.4.17, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube 
Integrity,'' 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and 5.6.10, 
``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' These changes summarize and 
clarify the purpose of the TSs in accordance with TS Task Force 
Traveler 510, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection 
Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
    Date of issuance: September 26, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 171, 153, 192, and 188.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68, NPF-81, NPF-2 and NPF-8 : 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 14, 2013 (78 FR 
28254). The supplemental letter dated July 17, 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 proposal 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 September 26, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: August 15, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 14, and June 14, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications associated

[[Page 64552]]

with the Low Temperature Overpressure System and the Pressure and 
Temperature Limits Report for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2.
    Date of issuance: October 2, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 193 and 189.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR 
60153). The supplements dated March 14, and June 14, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: September 1, 2011, as supplemented on 
February 10, April 30, December 18, 2012, February 27, June 14, August 
7, August 30, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specifications (TSs) 3.7.9 by changing the criteria for nuclear service 
cooling water tower three- and four-fan operation and provides a 7-day 
Completion Time for one-fan/spray cell being inoperable under certain 
conditions.
    Date of issuance: September 18, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 170 and 152.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR 
67489). The supplemental letters dated February 10, April 30, December 
18, 2012, February 27, June 14, August 7, August 30, 2013, provided 
additional information clarifying the license amendment request, did 
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did 
not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia and 
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 
Surry County, Virginia

    Date of application for amendment: September 27, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments authorize the 
addition of a 15-minute threshold for reactor coolant system leaks, 
based on NRC's Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2003-18, Supplement 2, 
``Use of NEI 99-01, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action 
Levels, Revision 4, Dated January 2003,'' dated December 12, 2005.
    Date of issuance: September 25, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 270, 252, 280, and 280.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7, DPR-32 and 
DPR-37: Amendments changed the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 11, 2012 (77 
FR 73691), and August 1, 2013 (78 FR 46616).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: September 26, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications to use a temporary 30'' seismic, non-missile 
protected jumper for providing service water to the component cooling 
heat exchangers (CCHX) while the licensee cleans, inspects, repairs (if 
necessary), and recoats (if necessary) the existing CCHX service water 
supply piping. The licensee will use the temporary jumper for up to 35 
days during each of the next two Unit 1 refueling outages, which the 
licensee has scheduled to perform in 2013 and 2015.
    Date of issuance: September 20, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 279 and 279.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments change the licenses and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The supplements dated 
June 4, and September 3, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No

ZionSolutions, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear Power 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: May 31, 2012, and October 25, 
2012, as supplemented by letters dated December 20, 2012, January 17, 
2013, February 21, 2013, April 4, 2013, and May 16, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments approve the upgraded 
Fuel Handling Building crane.
    Date of issuance: September 19, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment Nos.: 186 and 173.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48: These amendments 
are effective on the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to 
the start of operations to transfer spent fuel to the Zion Independent 
Spent Fuel Storage Installation
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR 
47123). The October 25, 2012, December 20, 2012, January 17, 2013, 
February 21, 2013, April 4, 2013, and May 16, 2013, submittals provided 
clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original 
request.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of October 2013.


[[Page 64553]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Monninger,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-25394 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P