[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60321-60331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23609]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0224]


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

[[Page 60322]]

Commission (the NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The 
Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or 
combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission 
that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from September 5, 2013 to September 18, 2013. The 
last biweekly notice was published on September 17, 2013 (78 FR 57180).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0224. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. 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-A44MP, 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-2013-0224 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0224.
     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-2013-0224 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 http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency 
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 
NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will

[[Page 60323]]

rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will 
issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) the name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [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

[[Page 60324]]

located on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free 
call at 1-866 672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 
excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three 
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(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 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].

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: August 29, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.17, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube 
Integrity,'' TS 5.5.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam 
Generator (SG) Program'', and TS 5.6.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 
Model D5 Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' The proposed changes 
address implementation issues associated with inspection periods, and 
address other administrative changes and clarifications. The proposed 
amendment is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam 
Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.'' 
The availability of this improvement was announced in the Federal 
Register on October 27, 2011 (76 FR 66763), as part of the consolidated 
line item improvement process.
    Luminant Generation Company LLC has proposed minor non-technical 
variations from the TS changes proposed in TSTF-510, Revision 2. 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Units 1 and 2, TSs utilize 
different numbering and titles than the Standard Technical 
Specifications on which TSTF-510 is based, since SGs for CPNPP, Units 1 
and 2, are of different models. These differences are administrative in 
nature and do not affect the applicability of TSTF-510 to the CPNPP, 
Units 1 and 2, TSs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to 
modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG 
tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event 
is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a 
plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency 
and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG 
tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not 
increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the 
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The 
proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed 
those assumptions.
    Therefore, 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 changes to the Steam Generator Program will not 
introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or 
postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The 
proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their 
method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not 
impact any other plant system or component.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part 
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied 
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As 
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are 
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface 
between the primary

[[Page 60325]]

and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from 
the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate the 
radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the 
secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is 
maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes. Steam generator 
tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the 
physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect 
tube design or operating environment. The proposed change will 
continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the SG 
tubes such that there will not be a reduction in the margin of 
safety compared to the current requirements.
    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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 2, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3 by 
departing from the Combined License Appendix C information. The changes 
correct editorial errors and promote consistency with the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report Tier 2 information.
    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 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 editorial and consistency plant-specific Tier 1 
[sic, Appendix C] update does not involve a technical change, e.g., 
there is no design parameter or requirement, calculation, analysis, 
function, or qualification change. No structure, system, component 
(SSC) design or function would be affected. No design or safety 
analysis would be affected. The proposed changes do not affect any 
accident initiating event or component failure, thus the 
probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not 
affected. No function used to mitigate a radioactive material 
release and no radioactive material release source term is involved, 
thus the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an 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 editorial and consistency plant-specific Tier 1 
[sic, Appendix C] update would not affect the design or function of 
any SSC, but will instead provide consistency between the SSC 
designs and functions currently presented in the UFSAR and the Tier 
1 [sic, Appendix C] information. The proposed (non-technical) 
changes would not introduce a new failure mode, 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 editorial and consistency plant-specific Tier 1 
[sic, Appendix C] update is nontechnical, thus would not affect any 
design parameter, function, or analysis. There would be no change to 
an existing design basis, design function, regulatory criterion, or 
analysis. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is involved.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 17, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3 by 
departing from Tier 2 and Tier 2* material related to fire area 
boundaries and contained within the updated final safety analysis 
report (UFSAR). The proposed changes would alter the layout of the 
Annex Building and Turbine Building, change Turbine Building Stairwell 
S08, and clarify a UFSAR figure of the Annex Building heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning shafts.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes, 
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions, and 
an Annex Building ventilation shaft Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) figure clarification would not affect any safety-
related equipment or function. The modified configurations would 
continue to maintain the associated fire protection (i.e., barrier) 
functions. The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the 
fire protection analysis results remain acceptable. The affected 
rooms and equipment do not contain or interface with safety-related 
equipment. The proposed changes do not involve any accident 
initiating event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously 
evaluated are not affected. The affected rooms do not represent a 
radioactive material barrier, and this activity does not involve the 
containment of radioactive material. The radioactive material source 
terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, 
thus the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not 
affected. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes, 
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions,

[[Page 60326]]

and an Annex Building ventilation shaft UFSAR figure clarification 
would not change the performance of the fire barriers. Fire zone 
loadings and associated fire analyses remain within their acceptance 
limits. The affected rooms do not contain equipment whose failure 
could initiate an accident. The fire boundary changes do not create 
a new failure or sequence of events that could initiate a new or 
different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed Annex Building and Turbine Building layout changes, 
Turbine Building stairwell changes to support egress functions, and 
an Annex Building ventilation shaft UFSAR figure clarification would 
not change the fire protection performance of any fire barrier. No 
safety or fire requirement acceptance criterion would be exceeded or 
challenged. The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected. No 
safety-related equipment, area, or function is involved. The amounts 
of combustible material loadings in the affected fire zones remain 
within their applicable limits. The proposed fire boundary changes 
comply with existing design codes and regulatory criteria, and do 
not affect any safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 7, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3 by 
departing from the Combined License Appendix C information and the 
plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 and Tier 2* 
material by changing the Turbine Building structures and layout by: (1) 
Changing the door location on the motor-driven fire pump room in the 
Turbine Building, (2) clarifying the column line designations for the 
southwest and southeast walls of the Turbine Building first bay, (3) 
changing the floor to ceiling heights at three different elevations in 
the Turbine Building main area, and (4) increasing elevations and wall 
thickness in certain walls of the Turbine Building first Bay.
    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 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 to the Turbine Building configuration do 
not alter the assumed initiators to any analyzed event. Changing the 
door location does not affect the operation of any systems or 
equipment inside or outside the Turbine Building that could initiate 
an analyzed accident. Clarifying the column line designations does 
not affect the operation of any systems or equipment inside or 
outside the Turbine Building that could initiate an analyzed 
accident. The changes in elevation and wall thickness do not affect 
the operation of any systems or equipment inside or outside the 
Turbine Building that could initiate an analyzed accident. In 
preparing this license amendment, it was considered if the changes 
to the Turbine Building door location, column line designations, 
wall thickness, and floor elevations would have an adverse impact on 
the ability of the Turbine Building structure to perform its design 
function to protect the systems, equipment, and components within 
this building. It was concluded that there was no adverse impact, 
because design of this structure, including the redesigned first bay 
wall heights and thicknesses, will continue to be in accordance with 
the same codes and standards as stated in the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The Turbine Building 
first bay continues to maintain its seismic Category II rating. 
Based on the above, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated will not be increased by these proposed changes. The 
proposed Turbine Building configuration changes will not affect 
radiological dose consequence analysis. The affected portions of the 
Turbine Building are unrelated to radiological analyses. Therefore, 
no accident source term parameter or fission product barrier is 
impacted by these changes. Structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) required for mitigation of analyzed accidents are not 
affected by these changes, and the function of the Turbine Building 
to provide weather protection for SSCs inside the building is not 
adversely affected by these changes. Mitigation of a high energy 
line break (HELB) in the Turbine Building first bay is not adversely 
affected by this change, because additional vent area will be added 
to the south wall of the first bay above the Auxiliary Building 
roof. This additional vent area will exceed the vent area that is 
blocked by the change to the Turbine Building main area elevations. 
Consequently, this activity will not increase the consequences of 
any analyzed accident, including the main steam line limiting break.
    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 Turbine Building configuration changes to the 
location of a door leading to the Motor-Driven Fire Pump room, 
column line designations, floor elevations in the main area, and 
wall heights and thicknesses in the first bay do not change the 
design function of the Turbine Building or any of the systems or 
equipment in the Turbine Building or in any other Nuclear Island 
structures. In assessing the proposed changes, it was considered if 
they would lead to a different type of possible accident than those 
previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not adversely affect 
any system design functions or methods of operation. The proposed 
changes do not introduce any new equipment or components or change 
the operation of any existing systems or equipment in a manner that 
would result in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of 
events that could affect safety-related or nonsafety-relate 
equipment. This activity will not create a new sequence of events 
that would result in significant fuel cladding failures. With the 
implementation of these changes to the design of this structure, 
including the redesigned first bay wall heights and thicknesses, the 
structure will continue to be in accordance with the same codes and 
standards as stated in the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3 UFSAR. The Turbine 
Building First Bay continues to maintain its seismic Category II 
rating. Based on the above, it was concluded that the proposed 
changes would not lead to a different type of possible accident than 
those previously considered.
    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 margin of safety for the design of the Turbine Building, 
including the seismic Category II Turbine Building first bay, is 
determined by the use of the current codes and standards and 
adherence to the assumptions used in the analyses of this structure 
and the events associated with this structure. The relocated door to 
the motor-driven fire pump room will continue to meet the current 3-
hour fire rating requirements.

[[Page 60327]]

The revised column line designations do not represent a physical 
plant modification, and have no adverse impact on plant construction 
or operation. The design of the Turbine Building, including the 
increased elevations in the main area and the increased height and 
thickness of the redesigned first bay walls, will continue to be in 
accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. 
The increased elevation of the first bay roof to allow the 
installation of blow-out panels will provide additional gross vent 
area for the first bay, which more than compensates for the current 
vent area that will be blocked by the change in the Turbine Building 
main area elevations. Consequently, this activity will not adversely 
affect the first bay's ability to relieve pressure in the event of 
the limiting main steam line break, and consequently this activity 
will not reduce the current margin of safety associated with this 
event to the design pressure limits for Wall 11 of the Nuclear 
Island and the walls of the first bay. The first bay will continue 
to maintain a seismic Category II rating. Adhering to the same codes 
and standards for the Turbine Building structural design and 
maintaining a seismic Category II rating for the Turbine Building 
first bay preserves the current structural safety margins.
    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, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses
    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the 
NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by 
email to [email protected].

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-250, Turkey Point 
Nuclear Generating, Unit 3, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: March 8, 2013, as supplemented 
by letter dated July 12, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows a one-time 
(temporary) 2-month extension of Technical Specifications (TSs) 
Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.1.d involving an operability 
demonstration of emergency core cooling system accumulator check 
valves.
    Date of issuance: September 10, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 258.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-31: Amendment revised 
the license and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 28, 2013 (78 FR 
31982). The supplement dated July 12, 2013, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 10, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 12, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the Cooper 
Nuclear Station license condition 2.E to require incorporation of the 
commitments listed in appendix A of NUREG-1944 in the updated safety 
analysis report to be managed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
    Date of issuance: September 12, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 247.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2013 (78 FR 
40519).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 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: August 5, 2011, as supplemented 
by letters dated October 14, 2011, April 23, 2012, May 23, 2012, July 
9, 2012, October 15, 2012, January 11, 2013, February 12, 2013, March 
6, 2013, May 1, 2013, May 29, 2013, two supplements dated July 2, 2013, 
and August 5, 2013, and August 28, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would 
transition the DAEC fire protection program to a new risk-informed, 
performance-based alternative per 10 CFR 50.48(c) which incorporates by 
reference the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805 
(NFPA 805), ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light 
Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants--2001.''
    Date of issuance: September 10, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.

[[Page 60328]]

    Amendment No.: 286.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: Amendments revise 
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR 
60151). The supplemental information dated October 14, 2011, April 23, 
2012, May 23, 2012, July 9, 2012, October 15, 2012, January 11, 2013, 
February 12, 2013, March 6, 2013, May 1, 2013, May 29, 2013, two 
supplements dated July 2, 2013, and August 5, 2013, and August 28, 
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 10, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota

    Date of application for amendment: July 25, 2012, as supplemented 
by letter dated July 25, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised technical 
specification TS 5.5.14 to except the licensee from the requirement to 
perform an appendix J Type A test, containment integrated leakage rate 
test (ILRT), following modifications to the containment pressure 
boundary resulting from the replacement of the Prairie Island Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Unit 2 steam generators, scheduled for fall 2013.
    Date of issuance: September 11, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 297.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-60: Amendment revises 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 14, 2012 (77 
FR 56880).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: September 12, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.7, ``Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Inspection 
Program,'' to extend the reactor coolant pump (RCP) motor flywheel 
examination frequency from the currently approved 10-year examination 
frequency to an interval not to exceed 20 years, in accordance with 
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change traveler 
TSTF-421-A, Revision 0, ``Revision to RCP Flywheel Inspection Program 
(WCAP-15666),'' that has been approved generically for the Westinghouse 
Standard Technical Specifications (STS), NUREG-1431.
    A notice announcing the availability of this proposed TS change 
using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process was published in 
the Federal Register on October 22, 2003 (68 FR 60422). The TSTF-421 
model safety evaluation, model no significant hazards consideration 
determination, and model license amendment request were published in 
the Federal Register on June 24, 2003 (68 FR 37590).
    Date of issuance: September 5, 2013.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--216; Unit 2--218.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 27, 2012 (77 
FR 70841).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 5, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: April 25, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The existing Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.1, ``Site,'' Figures 5.1-1 through 5.1-4 for South 
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, identifies a Visitor's Center; 
however, the Visitor's Center has been demolished. In addition, Figures 
5.1-1, 5.1-3, and 5.1-4 identify the Emergency Operations Facility 
(EOF) within the Nuclear Training Facility; however, the EOF was 
relocated to Center of Energy Development building located in Bay City, 
Texas, approximately 12.5 air miles from the plant site in 2009. The 
amendments revise Figures 5.1-1 through 5.1-4 to remove references to 
the Visitor's Center and EOF and is administrative in nature.
    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 1--201; Unit 2--189.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR 
38085).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards 
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public 
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
    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 for the 
amendment 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.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local

[[Page 60329]]

media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a 
licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the 
Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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].
    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC's Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR's Reference staff 
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. 
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 petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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 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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing 
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any 
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
    All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including 
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for

[[Page 60330]]

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 [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 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 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 NRCs' Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: August 14, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 21 and September 6, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendment changes 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] 
Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' to delete the Notes that cover 
the RCS P/T limit curves on Figure 3.4.9-1, ``Pressure/Temperature 
Limits for Mechanical Heatup, Cooldown Following Shutdown, and Reactor 
Critical Operation,'' and Figure 3.4.9-2, ``Pressure/Temperature Limits 
for Reactor In-Service Leak and Hydraulic Testing,'' that are valid for 
16 effective full-power years (EFPY) of operation and allows the usage 
of the figures up

[[Page 60331]]

to 16 EFPY. The current notes state, ``Do Not Use This Figure. This 
curve applies to operations > [greater than] 12 EFPY. For current 
operation, use previous curve, which is valid up to 12 EFPY.'' TVA 
requested this change under exigent circumstances, which required an 
NRC expedited review of the requested change to support approval by 
September 19, 2013. The supplemental letters dated August 21 and 
September 6, 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 (NSHC) determination as published in 
the Federal Register.
    Date of issuance: September 13, 2013.
    Effective date: The license amendment is effective as of its date 
of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 284.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-33: Amendment revised the TSs.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration: Yes, a notice was published on August 23, 2013 (78 FR 
52571). The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the 
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been 
received. The notice also provided an opportunity to request a hearing 
by October 22, 2013, but indicated that if the Commission makes a final 
NSHC determination, any such hearing would take place after issuance of 
the amendment.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a safety evaluation dated September 13, 2013.
    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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of September 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Monninger,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-23609 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P