[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8195-8202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02352]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0020]


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

[[Page 8196]]

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 January 10 to January 23, 2013. The last 
biweekly notice was published on January 22, 2013 (78 FR 4469).

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publically available, 
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-
0020. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0020. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
     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-2013-0020 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0020.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. 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-2013-0020 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 http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``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 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

[[Page 8197]]

notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at 
[email protected], or by a toll-

[[Page 8198]]

free call at 1-866 672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 
excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With 
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve 
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three 
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the 
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon 
which the filing is based is materially different from information 
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a 
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, 
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; 
and Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 
2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
    Date of amendment request: May 31, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications to modify the end of cycle (EOC) moderator 
temperature coefficient (MTC) Surveillance Requirement (SR) by allowing 
an exemption to the SR if certain conditions are met. This conditional 
exemption from the SR will be determined on a cycle-specific basis.
    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:

    Criterion 1: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The probability or consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are 
unaffected by this proposed change. There is no change to any 
equipment response or accident mitigation scenario, and this change 
results in no additional challenges to fission product barrier 
integrity. The proposed change does not alter the design, 
configuration, operation, or function of any plant structure, 
system, or component. Further, the existing limits on MTC 
established by the Technical Specifications (TS), based on 
assumptions in the safety analyses, remain unchanged and continue to 
be satisfied. As a result, the outcomes of previously evaluated 
accidents are unaffected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2: Does the proposed amendment create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. 
The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity 
of any safety-related system. The proposed change neither installs 
nor removes any plant equipment, nor alters the design, physical 
configuration, or mode of operation of any plant structure, system, 
or component. The MTC is a variable that must remain within 
prescribed limits, but it is not an accident initiator. No physical 
changes are being made to the plant, so no new accident causal 
mechanisms are being introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 3: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of 
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no effect 
on the availability, operability, or performance of the 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 operable 
structure, system, or component to perform its designated safety 
function is unaffected by this change. A change to an SR is proposed 
based on an alternate method of confirming that the surveillance is 
met.
    The TS and the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) establish 
limits for the MTC based on assumptions in the accident analyses. 
Applying the conditional exemption from the MTC measurement changes 
the method of meeting the SR; however, this change does not modify 
the COLR values and ensures adherence to the current COLR limits. 
The basis for the derivation of the MTC Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) and SR limits from the MTC assumed in the accident 
analyses is unchanged.
    Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the TS is not 
reduced and the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 8199]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 25, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
change selected atmospheric relative concentration values for use in 
control room radiological dose analyses.
    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.
    This proposed amendment submits [atmosphere relative 
concentration values] x/Qs that were accurately calculated and in 
conformance with NRC guidance. Meteorological inputs that were 
previously submitted to the NRC and used to calculate these X/Qs 
were not revised or updated nor has any of the dose release points 
changed. Accident mitigation procedures and controls are in no way 
affected by this amendment. Duke Energy has also ensured that the 
control room doses determined with these re-calculated X/Qs are 
within the 10 CFR 50.67 AST limits.
    As such, 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.
    This proposed amendment is analytical in nature. It does not 
involve a plant modification or a change in how the plant is 
operated. No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result 
of this proposed amendment. No changes are being made to any 
structure, system, or component which will introduce any new 
accident causal mechanisms. This amendment request does not impact 
any plant systems that are accident initiators and does not impact 
any safety analysis.
    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 the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following accident conditions. These barriers include the 
fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment 
system. The proposed re-calculation of the X/Qs will have no affect 
on the performance of these barriers. This proposed amendment does 
not involve an addition or modification to any plant system, 
structure, or component. This proposed amendment will not affect the 
post accident operation of any plant system, structure, or component 
as directed in plant procedures.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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: September 14, 2012, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 17, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Standby Service Water (SSW) Passive Failure Methodology as 
described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to be 
consistent with SECY-77-439, ``NRC Information Paper on Single Failure 
Criterion,'' dated August 1, 1977. In this SECY paper, the NRC stated 
that credible passive SSW failures that result in a loss-of-fluid in 
post-accident scenarios, can be limited to pump or valve seal leakage. 
In a UFSAR change made in 1987 under 10 CFR 50.59, the licensee adopted 
this language, but during a recent NRC Component and Design Basis 
Inspection, the NRC staff concluded that such a change requires NRC 
staff review and approval and, therefore, the licensee has proposed 
this amendment.
    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.
    Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) proposes the utilization of 
limited size breaks (through-wall leakage cracks) in the analysis of 
passive failures of Standby Service Water (SSW) piping during the 
post-LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] phase of an accident. 
Postulating passive pipe ruptures and heat exchanger tube ruptures, 
and pipe fitting (tee, elbow, reducer, etc) ruptures in the SSW 
piping is overly conservative. SECY 77-439 underscores the fact that 
the probability of failure of the service water piping during the 
critical 24-hour period after a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) is 
so low that it does not constitute a credible event.
    Additionally, crack locations and sizes postulated under the 
guidance of Standard Review Plan (SRP) (NUREG 0800) Sections 3.6.1 
and 3.6.2 are applicable and bounding in terms of the consideration 
of passive failures as addressed in SECY 77-439, and are thus 
applicable to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station pipe failure analysis.
    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 UFSAR 
changes demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is 
not significantly affected because of the adoption of revised 
methodology for postulating single phase failures of the Standby 
Service Water (SSW) to be consistent with NRC guidance published in 
References 2 and 3 [of the licensee's letter dated December 17, 
2012].
    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 UFSAR change allows GGNS to be consistent with NRC 
guidance published in References 2 and 3 [of the licensee's letter 
dated December 17, 2012] which state that credible passive SSW 
failures that can result in a loss of fluid post-accident are 
limited to pump or valve seal leakage, not ruptures of SSW system 
piping. The proposed UFSAR change does not introduce any failure 
mechanisms of a 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

[[Page 8200]]

operated in a different manner. As a result, no new failure modes 
are being introduced. The way surveillance tests are performed 
remains unchanged.
    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 revision of the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) to describe the use of revised methodology for 
postulating single phase failures of the Standby Service Water (SSW) 
to be consistent with NRC guidance published in References 2 and 3 
[of the licensee's letter dated December 17, 2012] which state that 
credible passive SSW failures that can result in a loss of fluid 
post-accident are limited to pump or valve seal leakage, not 
ruptures of SSW system piping. The impact of the change on system 
availability is not significant, based on the frequency of the 
testing being unchanged, the existence of redundant systems and 
equipment, and overall system reliability. The proposed change does 
not significantly impact the condition or performance of structures, 
systems, and components relied upon for accident mitigation. The 
proposed change does not 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 change does not 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.

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: November 9, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to support the correction of 
a non-conservative TS allowable value in TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, 
``Allowable Value for Primary Containment and Drywell Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' Function 3.c, ``Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 
(RCIC) Steam Supply Line Pressure--Low.'' This TS allowable value will 
be changed from greater than or equal to 53 pounds per square inch 
gauge (psig) to greater than or equal to 57 psig.
    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 TS allowable value change involves a change in the 
margin between the allowable value and the setpoint. The proposed TS 
change does not change the trip setpoint. The proposed TS change 
does not degrade the performance of, or increase the challenges to, 
any safety systems assumed to function in the accident analysis. The 
proposed TS change does 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 
[sic] trip setpoint for the associated TRM function is not 
considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a 
revision to the allowable value 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 the reduction in margin between 
the allowable value and the trip setpoint.
    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 TS change involves a change in the allowable value 
setting to correct a non-conservative value. The proposed TS change 
does not introduce any failure mechanisms of a 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.
    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 change involves a change in the allowable value 
setting to correct a non-conservative value. The impact of the 
change on system availability is not significant, based on the 
frequency of the testing being unchanged, the existence of redundant 
systems and equipment, and overall system reliability. The proposed 
change does not significantly impact the condition or performance of 
structures, systems, and components relied upon for accident 
mitigation. The proposed change does not 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 change does not 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.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure 
Protection (LTOP) System,'' to reflect the mass input transient 
analysis that assumes an emergency core cooling system centrifugal 
charging pump and the normal charging pump capable of injecting into 
the reactor coolant system during the TS 3.4.12 Applicability.
    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

[[Page 8201]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises TS 3.4.12 to allow an ECCS 
[emergency core cooling system] CCP [centrifugal charging pump] and 
the NCP [normal charging pump] to be capable of injecting into the 
RCS [reactor coolant system] during low RCS pressures and 
temperatures. The Limiting Condition for Operation provides RCS 
overpressure protection by having a minimum coolant input capability 
and have adequate pressure relief capability. Analyses have 
demonstrated that one power operated relief valve (PORV) or one 
residual heat removal (RHR) suction relief valve or an RCS vent of 
at least 2.0 square inches is capable of limiting the RCS pressure 
excursions below the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G limits for the 
design basis LTOP limits.
    The NRC has previously evaluated the allowance for an ECCS CCP 
and the NCP being capable of injecting into the RCS during the TS 
3.4.12 Mode of Applicability. In the safety evaluation dated 
December 7, 1999 related to Wolf Creek Generation Station, Unit 1, 
Amendment No. 130, the NRC concluded:
    The operability of two PORVs or two RHR suction relief valves or 
an RCS vent opening of at least 2 square inches ensure adequate flow 
capacity to protect the RCS from overpressurization from either (1) 
the start of a centrifugal charging pump and/or the normal charging 
pump injecting into the RCS, or (2) the start of the idle RCP 
[reactor coolant pump] with the secondary water temperature of the 
steam generator less than or equal to 50 [deg]F above the RCS cold 
leg temperature.
    The proposed change does 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 change does not 
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components 
(SSC) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, 
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in 
evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types 
and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, 
nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/
public radiation exposure.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not represent a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises TS 3.4.12 to allow an ECCS CCP and 
the NCP to be capable of injecting into the RCS during low RCS 
pressures and temperatures. The Limiting Condition for Operation 
provides RCS overpressure protection by having a minimum coolant 
input capability and have adequate pressure relief capability. 
Analyses have demonstrated that one power operated relief valve 
(PORV) or one residual heat removal (RHR) suction relief valve or an 
RCS vent of at least 2.0 square inches is capable of limiting the 
RCS pressure excursions below the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G limits 
for the design basis LTOP limits.
    The proposed change will not physically alter the plant (no new 
or different type of equipment will be installed) or change the 
methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does 
not introduce new accident initiators or impact assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. Testing requirements continue to demonstrate 
that the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are functional.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not impacted by this change. The proposed change will not result 
in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses
    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
[email protected].

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: July 31, 2012, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 28, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revised 
the Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 Technical Specification 
requirements regarding steam generator tube inspections and reporting 
as described in TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator 
Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection''; however, 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. is proposing minor variations and 
deviations from TSTF-510.
    Date of issuance: January 11, 2013.

[[Page 8202]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 256.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 429, 2012 (77 
FR 53927).
    The supplemental letter contains clarifying information, did not 
change the scope of the license amendment request, did not change the 
NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and did 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 January 11, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: August 29, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable snubbers by 
adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.8. The amendments 
also made conforming changes to TS LCO 3.0.1 to reference TS LCO 3.0.8. 
The proposed changes are based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) standard TS 
change TSTF-372, Revision 4. A notice of availability for this TS 
improvement using the consolidated line item improvement process was 
published by the NRC staff in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 
FR 23252).
    Date of issuance: January 22, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 285 and 288.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR 
60150).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 22, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
 Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2013-02352 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P