[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49463-49472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20114]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362; NRC-2012-0192]


Southern California Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating 
Station, Units 2 and 3; Application and Amendment to Facility Operating 
License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene.

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

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 17, 2012. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, 
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0192. 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-2012-0192. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project 
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1132; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0192 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0192.
     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]. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced. The application for amendment, dated July 29, 2011 is 
available electronically under ADAMS Accession No. ML112510214.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0192 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your

[[Page 49464]]

comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enters the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not 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 in their comment submissions 
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should 
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such 
information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-10 and NPF-15 issued to Southern California Edison Company (SCE, 
the licensee) for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating 
Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, located in San Diego County, 
California.
    The licensee submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for SONGS, 
Units 2 and 3, dated July 29, 2011, requesting approval to convert the 
Current Technical Specifications (CTS) to be consistent with the most 
recently approved version of the Standard Technical Specifications 
(STS) for Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432. In 1996, SONGS was 
the first plant to adopt the STS for Combustion Engineering plants 
(NUREG-1432, Revision 0). Over time, a number of changes and revisions 
have been made to those STS, and this LAR seeks to update the SONGS CTS 
to the Improved STS (ITS) reflected in NUREG-1432, Revision 3, with the 
additional adoption of some recent Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) travelers. The LAR also includes beyond scope changes that are 
beyond the scope of the ITS as described in NUREG-1432, Revision 3, and 
beyond the scope of the SONGS CTS.
    Attachment 1 of the LAR contains 15 volumes; Volumes 1-14 provide a 
detailed description of the proposed changes to the following ITS 
Chapters and Sections:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 1............................  ITS Chapter 1.0, Use and
                                       Application
Volume 2............................  ITS Chapter 2.0, Safety Limits
                                       (SLs)
Volume 3............................  ITS Section 3.0, Limiting
                                       Condition for Operation (LCO)
                                       Applicability and Surveillance
                                       Requirement (SR) Applicability
Volume 4............................  ITS Section 3.1, Reactivity
                                       Control Systems
Volume 5............................  ITS Section 3.2, Power
                                       Distribution Limits
Volume 6............................  ITS Section 3.3, Instrumentation
Volume 7............................  ITS Section 3.4, Reactor Coolant
                                       System (RCS)
Volume 8............................  ITS Section 3.5, Emergency Core
                                       Cooling Systems (ECCS)
Volume 9............................  ITS Section 3.6, Containment
                                       Systems
Volume 10...........................  ITS Section 3.7, Plant Systems
Volume 11...........................  ITS Section 3.8, Electrical Power
                                       Systems
Volume 12...........................  ITS Section 3.9, Refueling
                                       Operations
Volume 13...........................  ITS Chapter 4.0, Design Features
Volume 14...........................  ITS Chapter 5.0, Administrative
                                       Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enclosure 2 of the LAR provides a description of the three beyond 
scope changes, and Enclosure 3 includes a list of the TSTFs that would 
be adopted in whole or in part in the proposed amendment.
    This notice is based on the LAR dated July 29, 2011, and the 
information provided to the NRC through the San Onofre ITS Conversion 
Web page hosted by Excel Services Corporation at http://www.excelservices.com. To expedite the review of the application, the 
NRC staff issued or will issue its requests for additional information 
(RAIs) and the licensee addressed or will address the RAIs through the 
ITS Conversion Web page. Entry into the database is protected so that 
only the licensee and NRC reviewers can enter information into the 
database to add RAIs (NRC) or provide responses to the RAIs (the 
licensee); however, the public can enter the database to read the 
questions asked and the responses provided. To be in compliance with 
the regulations for written communications for LARs and to have the 
database on the SONGS dockets before the amendments would be issued, 
the licensee will provide a copy of the database in a submittal to the 
NRC after there are no future RAIs and before the amendments can be 
issued. The RAIs and responses to RAIs are organized by ITS Section.
    The licensee has classified each proposed change to the SONGS CTS 
into one of the following five categories (with its letter designator 
within brackets):
     Administrative changes (A)--Changes to the CTS that do not 
result in new requirements or change operational restrictions or 
flexibility. These changes are supported in aggregate by a single 
generic no significant hazards consideration (NSHC).
     More restrictive changes (M)--Changes to the CTS that 
result in added restrictions or reduced flexibility. These changes are 
supported in aggregate by a single generic NSHC.
     Relocated specifications (R)--Changes to the CTS that 
relocate specifications that do not meet the selection criteria of 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.36(c)(2)(ii). 
These changes are supported in aggregate by a single generic NSHC.
     Removed detail changes (LA)--Changes to the CTS that 
eliminate detail and relocate the detail to a licensee-controlled 
document. Typically, this involves details of system design and 
function, or procedural detail on methods of conducting a Surveillance 
Requirement (SR). These changes are supported in aggregate by a single 
generic NSHC.
     Less restrictive changes (L)--Changes to the CTS that 
result in reduced restrictions or added flexibility. These changes are 
supported either in aggregate by a generic NSHC that addresses a 
particular category of less restrictive change, or by a specific NSHC 
if the change does not fall into one of the eight categories of less 
restrictive changes. The eight categories of less restrictive changes 
are designated as:

--Category 1--Relaxation of LCO Requirements
--Category 2--Relaxation of Applicability
--Category 3--Relaxation of Completion Time
--Category 4--Relaxation of Required Action
--Category 5--Deletion of Surveillance Requirement
--Category 6--Relaxation of Surveillance Requirement Acceptance 
Criteria
--Category 7--Relaxation of Surveillance Frequency
--Category 8--Deletion of Reporting Requirements

    If the less restrictive change is covered by a generic NSHC, the 
category of the change is identified in italics at the beginning of the 
discussion of changes (DOCs) in the LAR.
    The three less restrictive changes covered by a specific NSHC are

[[Page 49465]]

described in the LAR in ITS 1.0, ``Use and Applications,'' Less 
Restrictive Change L01 (Attachment 1, Volume 1, page 112), and ITS 3.0, 
``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less Restrictive Changes L01 and L02 
(Attachment 1, Volume 3, pages 2 and 4, respectively).
    Administrative Changes. Some of the proposed changes involve 
reformatting, renumbering, and rewording of CTS with no change in 
intent. These changes, since they do not involve technical changes to 
the CTS, are administrative. This type of change is connected with the 
movement of requirements within the current requirements, or with the 
modification of wording that does not affect the technical content of 
the CTS. These changes also include non-technical modifications of 
requirements to conform to TSTF-GG-05-01, ``Writer's Guide for Plant-
Specific Improved Standard Technical Specifications,'' or provide 
consistency with the ITS in NUREG-1432. Administrative changes are not 
intended to add, delete, or relocate any technical requirements of the 
CTS.
    More Restrictive Changes. Some of the proposed changes involve 
adding more restrictive requirements to the CTS by either making 
current requirements more stringent or by adding new requirements that 
currently do not exist. These changes include additional requirements 
that decrease allowed outage times, increase the Frequency of 
Surveillances, impose additional Surveillances, increase the scope of 
Specifications to include additional plant equipment, increase the 
Applicability of Specifications, or provide additional actions. These 
changes are generally made to conform to NUREG-1432 and have been 
evaluated to not be detrimental to plant safety.
    Relocated Specifications. Some of the proposed changes involve 
relocating CTS LCOs to licensee-controlled documents. SCE has evaluated 
the CTS using the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36. Specifications 
identified by this evaluation that did not meet the retention 
requirements specified in the regulation are not included in the ITS. 
These specifications have been relocated from the CTS to either the 
Licensee Controlled Specification (LCS), which is currently 
incorporated by reference into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) or the UFSAR.
    Removed Detail Changes. Some of the proposed changes involve moving 
details out of the CTS and into the TS Bases, the UFSAR, the 
Containment Leakage Rate Testing (CLRT) Program, the LCS, or other 
documents under regulatory control, such as the Offsite Dose 
Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Quality Assurance Program (QAP), the 
Inservice Testing (IST) Program, the Inservice Inspection (ISI) 
Program, and the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). The 
removal of this information is considered to be less restrictive 
because it is no longer controlled by the TS change process. Typically, 
the information moved is descriptive in nature and its removal conforms 
to NUREG-1432 for format and content.
    Less Restrictive Changes--Category 1--Relaxation of LCO 
Requirements. Some of the proposed changes involve relaxation of the 
CTS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) by the elimination of 
specific items from the LCO or Tables referenced in the LCO, or the 
addition of exceptions to the LCO. These changes reflect the ITS 
approach to provide LCO requirements that specify the protective 
conditions that are required to meet safety analysis assumptions for 
required features. These conditions replace the lists of specific 
devices used in the CTS to describe the requirements needed to meet the 
safety analysis assumptions. The ITS also includes LCO Notes which 
allow exceptions to the LCO for the performance of testing or other 
operational needs. The ITS provides the protection required by the 
safety analysis, and provides flexibility for meeting the conditions 
without adversely affecting operations since equivalent features are 
required to be OPERABLE. The ITS is also consistent with the plant 
current licensing basis, as may be modified in the discussion of 
individual changes. These changes are generally made to conform with 
NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to not be detrimental to plant 
safety.
    Less Restrictive Changes--Category 2--Relaxation of Applicability. 
Some of the proposed changes involve relaxation of the applicability of 
CTS LCOs by reducing the conditions under which the LCO requirements 
must be met. CTS requirements are being eliminated during conditions 
for which the safety function of the specified safety system is met 
because the feature is performing its intended safety function. 
Deleting applicability requirements that are indeterminate or which are 
inconsistent with application of accident analyses assumptions is 
acceptable because when LCOs cannot be met, the ITS may be satisfied by 
exiting the applicability which takes the plant out of the conditions 
that require the safety system to be OPERABLE. This change provides the 
protection required by the safety analyses, and provides flexibility 
for meeting limits by restricting the application of the limits to the 
conditions assumed in the safety analyses. The ITS is also consistent 
with the plant current licensing basis, as may be modified in the 
discussion of individual changes. The change is generally made to 
conform with NUREG-1432, and has been evaluated to not be detrimental 
to plant safety.
    Less Restrictive Changes--Category 3--Relaxation of Completion 
Time. Some of the proposed changes involve relaxation of the Completion 
Times for Required Actions in the CTS. Upon discovery of a failure to 
meet an LCO, the ITS specifies times for completing Required Actions of 
the associated Conditions. Required Actions of the associated 
Conditions are used to establish remedial measures that must be taken 
within specified Completion Times. These times define limits during 
which operation in a degraded condition is permitted. Adopting 
Completion Times from the ITS is acceptable because the Completion 
Times take into account the OPERABILITY status of the redundant systems 
of required features, the capacity and capability of remaining 
features, a reasonable time for repairs or replacement of required 
features, and the low probability of a Design Basis Accident (DBA) 
occurring during the repair period. In addition, the ITS provides 
consistent Completion Times for similar conditions. These changes are 
generally made to conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to 
not be detrimental to plant safety.
    Less Restrictive Changes--Category 4--Relaxation of Required 
Action. Some of the proposed changes involve relaxation of the Required 
Actions in the CTS. Upon discovery of a failure to meet an LCO, the ITS 
specifies Required Actions to complete for the associated Conditions. 
Required Actions of the associated Conditions are used to establish 
remedial measures that must be taken in response to the degraded 
conditions. These actions minimize the risk associated with continued 
operation while providing time to repair inoperable features. Some of 
the Required Actions are modified to place the plant in a MODE in which 
the LCO does not apply. Adopting Required Actions from NUREG-1432 is 
acceptable because the Required Actions take into account the 
OPERABILITY status of redundant systems of required features, the 
capacity and capability of the remaining features, and the compensatory 
attributes of the Required Actions as compared to the LCO requirements. 
These changes are generally made to

[[Page 49466]]

conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to not be detrimental 
to plant safety.
    Less Restrictive Changes--Category 5--Deletion of Surveillance 
Requirement. Some of the proposed changes involve deletion of SRs in 
the CTS. The CTS require safety systems to be tested and verified 
OPERABLE prior to entering applicable operating conditions. The ITS 
eliminates unnecessary CTS SRs that do not contribute to verification 
that the equipment used to meet the LCO can perform its required 
functions. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be tested in a 
manner and at a frequency necessary to give confidence that the 
equipment can perform its assumed safety functions. These changes are 
generally made to conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to 
not be detrimental to plant safety.
    Less Restrictive Changes--Category 6--Relaxation of Surveillance 
Requirement Acceptance Criteria. Some of the proposed changes involve 
the relaxation of SRs acceptance criteria in the CTS. The CTS require 
safety systems to be tested and verified OPERABLE prior to entering 
applicable operating conditions. The ITS eliminates or relaxes the SR 
acceptance criteria that do not contribute to verification that the 
equipment used to meet the LCO can perform its required functions. For 
example, the ITS allows some SRs to verify OPERABILITY under actual or 
test conditions. Adopting the ITS allowance for ``actual'' conditions 
is acceptable because required features cannot distinguish between an 
``actual'' signal or a ``test'' signal. Also included are changes to 
CTS requirements that are replaced in the ITS with separate and 
distinct testing requirements that when combined, include OPERABILITY 
verification of all components required in the LCO for the features 
specified in the CTS. Adopting this format preference in the ITS is 
acceptable because SRs that remain include testing of all previous 
features required to be verified OPERABLE. Changes that provide 
exceptions to SRs to provide for variations that do not affect the 
results of the test are also included in this category. These changes 
are generally made to conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated 
to not be detrimental to plant safety.
    Less Restrictive Changes--Category 7--Relaxation of Surveillance 
Frequency. Some of the proposed changes involve the relaxation of 
Surveillance Frequencies in the CTS. CTS and ITS Surveillance 
Frequencies specify time interval requirements for performing 
Surveillance tests. Increasing the time interval between Surveillance 
tests in the ITS results in decreased equipment unavailability due to 
testing which also increases equipment availability. In general, the 
ITS contain Surveillance Frequencies that are consistent with industry 
practice or industry standards for achieving acceptable levels of 
equipment reliability. Adopting testing practices specified in the ITS 
is acceptable based on similar design, like-component testing for the 
system application and the availability of other ITS requirements which 
provide regular checks to ensure limits are met. Relaxation of 
Surveillance Frequency can also include the addition of Surveillance 
Notes which allow testing to be delayed until appropriate unit 
conditions for the test are established, or exempt testing in certain 
MODES or specified conditions in which the testing cannot be performed.
    Reduced testing can result in a safety enhancement because the 
unavailability due to testing is reduced, and reliability of the 
affected structure, system or component should remain constant or 
increase. Reduced testing is acceptable where operating experience, 
industry practice, or the industry standards such as manufacturers' 
recommendations have shown that these components usually pass the 
Surveillance when performed at the specified interval, thus the 
Surveillance Frequency is acceptable from a reliability standpoint. 
Surveillance Frequency changes to incorporate alternate train testing 
have been shown to be acceptable where other qualitative or 
quantitative test requirements are required that are established 
predictors of system performance. Surveillance Frequency extensions can 
be based on NRC-approved topical reports. The NRC staff has accepted 
topical report analyses that bound the plant-specific design and 
component reliability assumptions. These changes are generally made to 
conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to not be detrimental 
to plant safety.
    Less Restrictive Changes--Category 8--Deletion of Reporting 
Requirements. Some of the proposed changes involve the deletion of 
requirements in the CTS to send reports to the NRC. The CTS includes 
requirements to submit reports to the NRC under certain circumstances. 
However, the ITS eliminates these requirements for many such reports 
and, in many cases, relies on the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 
50.73 or other regulatory requirements. The ITS changes to reporting 
requirements are acceptable because the regulations provide adequate 
reporting requirements, or the reports do not affect continued plant 
operation. Therefore, this change has no effect on the safe operation 
of the plant. These changes are generally made to conform with NUREG-
1432, and have been evaluated to not be detrimental to plant safety.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) 50.92, 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. As required by 10 CFR 
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, 
by classification of change, which is presented below. The generic 
proposed NSHC, by classification of change, are listed first, followed 
by the specific proposed NSHC related to ITS Chapter 1.0 Less 
Restrictive Change L01, ITS Section 3.0 Less Restrictive Change L01, 
and ITS Section 3.0 Less Restrictive change L02 (changes that do not 
fall into one of the eight categories of less restrictive changes).

Generic Proposed NSHC

Administrative Changes

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves reformatting, renumbering, and 
rewording the CTS. The reformatting, renumbering, and rewording 
process involves no technical changes to the CTS. As such, this 
change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or

[[Page 49467]]

different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods 
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not 
impose any new or eliminate any old requirements.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because 
it has no effect on any safety analyses assumptions. This change is 
administrative in nature.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

More Restrictive Changes

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides more stringent Technical 
Specification requirements for the facility. These more stringent 
requirements do not result in operations that significantly increase 
the probability of initiating an analyzed event, and do not alter 
assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements continue to ensure process 
variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained 
consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does impose different Technical Specification requirements. 
However, these changes are consistent with the assumptions in the 
safety analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The imposition of more restrictive requirements either has no 
effect on or increases the margin of plant safety. As provided in 
the discussion of change, each change in this category is, by 
definition, providing additional restrictions to enhance plant 
safety. The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses 
and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Relocated Specifications

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates requirements and Surveillances for 
structures, systems, components, or variables that do not meet the 
criteria of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) for inclusion in Technical 
Specifications as identified in the Application of Selection 
Criteria to the SONGS Technical Specifications. The affected 
structures, systems, components or variables are not assumed to be 
initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate 
accident or transient events. The requirements and Surveillances for 
these affected structures, systems, components, or variables will be 
relocated from the CTS to the LCS, which is currently incorporated 
by reference into the UFSAR, thus it will be maintained pursuant to 
10 CFR 50.59. The UFSAR is subject to the change control provisions 
of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50.71(e). In addition, the affected 
structures, systems, components, or variables are addressed in 
existing surveillance procedures which are also controlled by 10 CFR 
50.59, and are subject to the change control provisions imposed by 
plant administrative procedures, which endorse applicable 
regulations and standards.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change will not impose or eliminate any requirements, and 
adequate control of existing requirements will be maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because 
it has no significant effect on any safety analyses assumptions, as 
indicated by the fact that the requirements do not meet the 10 CFR 
50.36 criteria for retention. In addition, the relocated 
requirements are moved without change, and any future changes to 
these requirements will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59.
    NRC prior review and approval of changes to these relocated 
requirements, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, will no longer be 
required. This review and approval does not provide a specific 
margin of safety that can be evaluated. However, the proposed change 
is consistent with NUREG-1432, issued by the NRC, which allows 
revising the CTS to relocate these requirements and Surveillances to 
a licensee controlled document.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

Removed Detail Changes

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates certain details from the CTS to 
other documents under regulatory control. The Technical 
Specification Bases and the LCS, which is currently incorporated by 
reference into the UFSAR, will be maintained in accordance with 10 
CFR 50.59. In addition to 10 CFR 50.59 provisions, the Technical 
Specification Bases are subject to the change control provisions in 
the Administrative Controls Chapter of the ITS. The UFSAR is subject 
to the change control provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 
50.71(e). Other documents are subject to controls imposed by the ITS 
or other regulations. Since any changes to these documents will be 
evaluated, no significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated will be allowed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The 
proposed change will not impose or eliminate any requirements, and 
adequate control of the information will be maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because 
it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. In 
addition, the details to be moved from the CTS to other documents 
are not being changed. Since any future changes to these details 
will be evaluated under the applicable regulatory change control 
mechanism, no significant reduction in a margin of safety will be 
allowed. A significant reduction in the margin of safety is not 
associated with the elimination of the 10 CFR 50.90 requirement for 
NRC review and approval of future changes to the relocated details. 
Not including these details in the Technical Specifications is 
consistent with NUREG-1432, issued by the NRC, which allows revising 
the Technical Specifications to relocate these requirements and 
Surveillances to a licensee controlled document controlled by 10 CFR 
50.59, 10 CFR 50.71(e), or other Technical

[[Page 49468]]

Specification controlled or regulation controlled documents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 1--Relaxation of LCO Requirements

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides less restrictive LCO requirements 
for operation of the facility. These less restrictive LCO 
requirements do not result in operation that will significantly 
increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event and do not 
alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient 
event in that the requirements continue to ensure process variables, 
structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with 
the current safety analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change does impose different requirements. However, the 
change is consistent with the assumptions in the current safety 
analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The imposition of less restrictive LCO requirements does not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided 
in the discussion of change, this change has been evaluated to 
ensure that the current safety analyses and licensing basis 
requirements are maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 2--Relaxation of Applicability

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the conditions under which the LCO 
requirements for operation of the facility must be met. These less 
restrictive applicability requirements for the LCOs do not result in 
operation that will significantly increase the probability of 
initiating an analyzed event and do not alter assumptions relative 
to mitigation of an accident or transient event in that the 
requirements continue to ensure that process variables, structures, 
systems, and components are maintained in the MODES and other 
specified conditions assumed in the safety analyses and licensing 
basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change does impose different requirements. However, the 
requirements are consistent with the assumptions in the safety 
analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed applicability of LCO requirements does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the 
discussion of change, this change has been evaluated to ensure that 
the LCO requirements are applied in the MODES and specified 
conditions assumed in the safety analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 3--Relaxation of Completion Time

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Completion Time for a Required 
Action. Required Actions and their associated Completion Times are 
not initiating conditions for any accident previously evaluated, and 
the accident analyses do not assume that required equipment is out 
of service prior to the analyzed event. Consequently, the relaxed 
Completion Time does not significantly increase the probability of 
any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an analyzed 
accident during the relaxed Completion Time are the same as the 
consequences during the existing Completion Time. As a result, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the method governing normal plant operation. The 
Required Actions and associated Completion Times in the ITS have 
been evaluated to ensure that no new accident initiators are 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed Completion Time for a Required Action does not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided 
in the discussion of change, the change has been evaluated to ensure 
that the allowed Completion Time is consistent with safe operation 
under the specified Condition, considering the OPERABILITY status of 
the redundant systems of required features, the capacity and 
capability of remaining features, a reasonable time for repairs or 
replacement of required features, and the low probability of a DBA 
occurring during the repair period.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 4--Relaxation of Required Action

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes Required Actions. Required Actions 
and their associated Completion Times are not initiating conditions 
for any accident previously evaluated, and the accident analyses do 
not assume that required equipment is out of service prior to the 
analyzed event. Consequently, the relaxed Required Actions do not 
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated. The Required Actions in the ITS have been developed to 
provide appropriate remedial actions to be taken in response to the 
degraded condition considering the OPERABILITY status of the 
redundant systems of required features, and the capacity and 
capability of remaining features while minimizing the risk 
associated with continued operation. As a result, the consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly 
increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
Required Actions and associated Completion Times in the ITS have 
been evaluated to ensure that no new accident initiators are 
introduced.

[[Page 49469]]

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed Required Actions do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the discussion of 
change, this change has been evaluated to minimize the risk of 
continued operation under the specified Condition, considering the 
OPERABILITY status of the redundant systems of required features, 
the capacity and capability of remaining features, a reasonable time 
for repairs or replacement of required features, and the low 
probability of a Design Basis Accident (DBA) occurring during the 
repair period.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 5--Deletion of Surveillance 
Requirement

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change deletes Surveillance Requirements. 
Surveillances are not initiators to any accident previously 
evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. The equipment being tested 
is still required to be OPERABLE and capable of performing the 
accident mitigation functions assumed in the accident analyses. As a 
result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
remaining Surveillance Requirements are consistent with industry 
practice, and are considered sufficient to prevent the removal of 
the subject Surveillances from creating a new or different type of 
accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The deleted Surveillance Requirements do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the 
discussion of change, the change has been evaluated to ensure that 
the deleted Surveillance Requirements are not necessary for 
verification that the equipment used to meet the LCO can perform its 
required functions. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be 
tested in a manner and at a frequency necessary to give confidence 
that the equipment can perform its assumed safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 6--Relaxation of Surveillance 
Requirement Acceptance Criteria

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the acceptance criteria of 
Surveillance Requirements. Surveillances are not initiators to any 
accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
equipment being tested is still required to be OPERABLE and capable 
of performing the accident mitigation functions assumed in the 
accident analyses. As a result, the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated are not significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed acceptance criteria for Surveillance Requirements do 
not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As 
provided in the discussion of change, the relaxed Surveillance 
Requirement acceptance criteria have been evaluated to ensure that 
they are sufficient to verify that the equipment used to meet the 
LCO can perform its required functions. Thus, appropriate equipment 
continues to be tested in a manner that gives confidence that the 
equipment can perform its assumed safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 7--Relaxation of Surveillance 
Frequency

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes Surveillance Frequencies. The 
relaxed Surveillance Frequencies have been established based on 
achieving acceptable levels of equipment reliability. Consequently, 
equipment that could initiate an accident previously evaluated will 
continue to operate as expected, and the probability of the 
initiation of any accident previously evaluated will not be 
significantly increased. The equipment being tested is still 
required to be OPERABLE and capable of performing any accident 
mitigation functions assumed in the accident analyses. As a result, 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed Surveillance Frequencies do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the 
discussion of change, the relaxation in the Surveillance Frequency 
has been evaluated to ensure that it provides an acceptable level of 
equipment reliability. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be 
tested at a Frequency that gives confidence that the equipment can 
perform its assumed safety function when required.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 8--Deletion of Reporting 
Requirements

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change deletes reporting requirements. Sending 
reports to the NRC is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. Consequently, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. Sending reports to the NRC 
has no effect on the ability of equipment to mitigate an accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)

[[Page 49470]]

or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The deletion of reporting requirements does not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The ITS eliminates 
the requirements for many such reports and, in many cases, relies on 
the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 or other regulatory 
requirements. The change to reporting requirements does not affect 
the margin of safety because the regulations provide adequate 
reporting requirements, or the reports do not affect continued plant 
operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Specific Proposed NSHC (Change Does Not Fall Into One of Eight 
Categories of Less Restrictive Changes)

    ITS Chapter 1.0, ``Use and Applications,'' Less Restrictive 
Change L01 (LAR, Attachment 1, Volume 1; page 112 of 114):
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates certain Completion Times from the 
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to 
any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of 
an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences 
of an accident during the revised Completion Time are no different 
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing 
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, 
and components (SSCs) from performing their intended 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 an accident 
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase 
the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released 
offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative 
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant 
consequences. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change 
does not alter any assumptions made in the safety analysis. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time 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 affected by this change. 
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside of the design basis. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    ITS Section 3.0, ``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less Restrictive 
Change L01 (LAR, Attachment 1, Volume 3, page 57 of 64):
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. Entrance into Actions 
or delaying entrance into Actions is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
consequences of an accident while relying on the delay time allowed 
before declaring a TS supported system inoperable and taking its 
Conditions and Required Actions are no different than the 
consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while 
relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and Required 
Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased by this change. Therefore, 
this change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation. Thus, this 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 allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change 
restores an allowance in the pre-ISTS conversion TS that was 
unintentionally eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were 
considered to provide an adequate margin of safety for plant 
operation, as does the post-ISTS conversion TS. Therefore, this 
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    ITS Section 3.0, ``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less Restrictive 
Change L02 (LAR, Attachment 1, Volume 3, page 60 of 64):
    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows entry into a MODE while relying on 
ACTIONS. Being in an ACTION is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
consequences of an accident while relying on ACTIONS as allowed by 
the proposed LCO 3.0.4 are no different than the consequences of an 
accident while relying on ACTIONS for other reasons, such as 
equipment inoperability. Therefore, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change. 
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows entry into a MODE or other specified 
conditions in the Applicability while relying on ACTIONS. The 
Technical Specifications allow operation of the plant without a full 
complement of equipment. The risk associated with this allowance is 
managed by the imposition of ACTIONS and Completion Times. The net 
effect of ACTIONS and Completion Times on the margin of safety is 
not considered significant. The proposed change does not change the 
ACTIONS or Completion Times of the Technical Specifications. The 
proposed change allows the ACTIONS and Completion Times to be used 
in new circumstances. However, this use is predicated on an 
assessment which focuses on managing plant risk. In addition, most 
current allowances to utilize the ACTIONS and Completion Times which 
do not require risk assessment are eliminated. As a result, the net 
change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this 
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.


[[Page 49471]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's generic and specific NSHC 
analyses of each classification of change and, based on this review, it 
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied for 
each proposed classification of change. Therefore, the NRC staff 
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    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.

III. Opportunity to Request a Hearing; Petition for Leave to Intervene

    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. 
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 O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 
or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the 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 
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.
    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.

IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    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 
ten 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

[[Page 49472]]

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 NRC'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 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 NRC'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 public 
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call to 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 August 16, 2012. Non-timely filings will not be entertained 
absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or 
request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based 
on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-
(viii).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 29, 2011.
    Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
California 91770.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of August 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph M. Sebrosky,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-20114 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P