[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60146-60160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24285]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0226]


Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or 
combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission 
that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from September 6, 2012, to September 19, 2012. 
The last biweekly notice was published on September 14, 2012 (77 FR 
56877).

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-
0226. 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-2012-0226. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 60147]]

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0226 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-2012-0226.
     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-2012-0226 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 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 entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and 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.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of 
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 
which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC 
Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 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

[[Page 60148]]

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

[[Page 60149]]

to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants 
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as 
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their 
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of 
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited 
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three 
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the 
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon 
which the filing is based is materially different from information 
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a 
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 8, 2010, with a supplement 
dated June 28, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
approve revisions to the updated final safety analysis report to 
incorporate the licensee's reactor vessel internals inspection plan.
    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. The NRC staff's analysis 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 license amendment request provides the report which 
describes the reactor vessel internals inspection plan. The report 
also provides a description of the inspection plan as it relates to 
the management of aging effects consistent with previous 
commitments. The inspection plan is based on technical report MRP-
227, Revision 0, ``Pressurized Water Reactors Internals Inspection 
and Evaluation Guidelines'' and the additional criteria stated in 
the NRC staff's safety evaluation of this technical report. The 
inspection plan contains a discussion of operational experience, 
time-limited aging analyses, and relevant existing programs.
    The licensee's Reactor Vessel Internals Aging Management Program 
includes the inspection plan and demonstrates that the program 
adequately manages the effects of aging for reactor vessel internal 
components and establishes the basis for providing reasonable 
assurance that the reactor vessel internal components will remain 
functional through the license renewal period of extended operation.
    This license amendment request provides an inspection plan based 
on industry work and experiences as agreed to in Duke Energy's 
license renewal commitments for reactor vessel internals inspection. 
It is not an accident initiator.
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
    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 reactor vessel internals inspection plan does not 
change the methods governing normal plant operation, nor are the 
methods utilized to respond to plant transients altered. The revised 
inspection plan is not an accident initiator an event initiator. No 
new initiating events or transients result from the use of the 
reactor vessel internals inspection plan.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed safety limits have been preserved. The license 
amendment request is for review and approval for the reactor vessel 
internals inspection plan that Duke Energy committed to provide 
prior to commencing inspections.
    Therefore, this request does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has determined that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 27, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications to allow each Keowee Hydro Unit to 
be inoperable for an extended period of time in order to perform major 
refurbishment work.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day 
Completion Time for Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required 
Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that one 
Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is inoperable for > 72 hours, a Lee 
Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing both standby buses, two 
offsite power sources will be maintained available, and maintenance 
on electrical distribution systems will not be performed unless 
necessary. In addition, risk significant systems (Emergency 
Feedwater System [EFW] and Standby Shutdown Facility [SSF]) will be 
verified operable prior to entry into the 75-day Completion Time. 
The temporary 75-day Completion Time will decrease the likelihood of 
an unplanned forced shutdown of all three Oconee Units and the 
potential safety consequences and operational risks associated with 
that action. Avoiding this risk offsets the risks associated with 
having a design basis event during the temporary 75-day completion 
time for having one KHU inoperable.
    The temporary addition of the 75-day Completion Time does not 
involve:
    (1) A physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2) the 
installation of new or different equipment; (3) operating any 
installed equipment in a new or different manner; or (4) a change to 
any set points for parameters which initiate protective or 
mitigation action.

[[Page 60150]]

    There is no adverse impact on containment integrity, 
radiological release pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main 
steam relief valve set points, or radwaste systems. No new 
radiological release pathways are created.
    The consequences of an event occurring during the temporary 75-
day Completion Time are the same as those that would occur during 
the existing Completion Time. Duke Energy reviewed the Probabilistic 
Risk Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights concerning the 
configuration of ONS with one KHU. The results of the risk analysis 
show a risk improvement if no maintenance is performed on the SSF, 
EFW System, and AC Power System. The results of the risk analysis 
show a small risk increase using the average nominal maintenance 
unavailability values for the SSF, EFW System, and AC Power System. 
By limiting maintenance, the risk results are expected to be between 
these two extremes (i.e., small risk impact).
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day 
Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with 
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.C. During the time period 
that one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the 
emergency power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory 
measures previously specified will be in place to minimize 
electrical power system vulnerabilities.
    The temporary 75-day Completion Time does not involve a physical 
effect on the Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk of an 
Oconee Unit trip or reactivity excursion. No new failure modes or 
credible accident scenarios are postulated from this activity.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day 
Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with 
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.C. During the time period 
that one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the 
emergency power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory 
measures previously specified will be in place to minimize 
electrical power system vulnerabilities.
    The proposed TS change does not involve: (1) A physical 
alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or 
different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new 
or different manner; (4) a change to any set points for parameters 
which initiate protective or mitigation action; or (5) any impact on 
the fission product barriers or safety limits.
    Therefore, this request 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear 
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Station, Vernon, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: April 17, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.A.5 and TS 4.5.A.5 to change 
the normal position of the recirculation pump discharge bypass valves 
from ``open'' to ``closed,'' and therefore, the safety function to 
close in support of accident mitigation would be eliminated. The TSs 
would be revised to require the valves to remain closed; their position 
would be verified once per operating cycle.
    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 amendment does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident. The recirculation system 
discharge bypass valve normal position has been changed from 
``open'' to ``closed.'' The safety function of the discharge bypass 
valves is to be closed to support accident mitigation. Placing the 
discharge bypass valves in the normally closed position is 
consistent with station safety analysis and therefore does not have 
a significant impact on the probability or consequence of an 
accident.
    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 change does not involve any new modes of operation. 
The recirculation system discharge bypass valve normal position has 
been changed from ``open'' to ``closed.'' The valves previously had 
a safety function to close and are designed to meet all code 
requirements in the closed position. No new accident precursors are 
introduced. Recirculation pump operating procedures have been 
revised consistent with vendor guidance. No new or different types 
of equipment will be installed. The methods governing plant 
operation remain bounded by current safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The recirculation system discharge bypass valve normal position 
has been changed from ``open'' to ``closed.'' With the valves 
normally in the closed position safety margins are maintained. The 
station safety analysis results are unchanged and margin to 
regulatory limits is not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment 
will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

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

    Date of application for amendments: August 29, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable 
snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.8. This change 
is based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) standard TS change TSTF-372, Revision 
4. A notice of availability for this TS improvement using the 
consolidated line item improvement process was published by the NRC 
staff in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252).
    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:


[[Page 60151]]


    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 Technical Specification (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. Consequently, 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, 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 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.
    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 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-Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (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, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett 
Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: August 16, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.5, ``Control Room Emergency 
Ventilation System,'' to correct a clerical error identified in the 
issued TS involving TS 3.7.5 Action ``c'' for Modes 5 and 6 that 
omitted an applicable footnote.
    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 amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel 
handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies 
that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat 
generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. 
The proposed TS change will allow core alterations, fuel movement, 
and positive reactivity changes in Modes 5 and 6 subject to the 
conditions specified in the \++\footnote that actions have been 
taken to permit indefinite system/component operation and the system 
is in recirculation mode. The proposed change corrects a clerical 
error by annotating TS 3.7.5 Action ``c'' with a modified footnote 
consistent with the stated intent of the original license 
submittals. The proposed amendments do not cause any physical change 
to the existing spent fuel storage configuration or fuel makeup. The 
proposed amendments do not affect any precursors to any accident 
previously evaluated or do not affect any known mitigation equipment 
or strategies.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel 
handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may 
be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel 
pool cooling and cleanup system. The proposed TS change will allow 
core alterations, fuel movement, and positive reactivity changes in 
Modes 5 and 6 subject to the conditions specified in the footnote 
that actions have been taken to permit indefinite system/component 
operation and the system is in recirculation mode. The proposed 
change corrects a clerical error by annotating TS 3.7.5 Action ``c'' 
with a modified footnote consistent with the stated intent of the 
original license submittals.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel 
handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may 
be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel 
pool cooling and cleanup system. Therefore, the proposed amendments 
have no impact to the existing margin of safety for subcriticality 
required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4).
    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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 5, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: 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.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 60152]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBAs) at DAEC. The 
proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor 
alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the 
facility and does not adversely affect the ability of structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their design function. 
SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a 
safe shutdown (SSD) condition will remain capable of performing 
their design functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new 
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) 805 provides an acceptable methodology 
and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection 
systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536, June 
16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have 
been performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-
based (RI-PB) requirements per NFPA 805 have been met.
    NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative 
to 10 CFR 50.48(b), satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design 
Criterion (GDC) 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, and meets the 
underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations 
and guidance, and achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and the goals, 
performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in 
Chapter 1 of the standard. The small increase in the net core damage 
frequency associated with this LAR submittal is consistent with the 
Commission's Safety Goal Policy. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c) 
allows self approval of fire protection program changes post-
transition. If there are any increases post-transition in core 
damage frequency (CDF) or risk, the increase will be small and 
consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not 
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains 
capable of performing the assumed function. Therefore, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased with the implementation of this amendment.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously 
analyzed accident with offsite dose was included in the evaluation 
of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does not alter 
the requirements or function for systems required during accident 
conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection licensing 
basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 
(c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205 will not result in 
new or different accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design 
function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain 
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their 
design functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new 
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 
1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable 
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire 
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative 
to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 
33536, June 16, 2004).
    The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and 
the impacts of fire on the plant that have already been evaluated. 
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind 
of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not 
involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a 
new accident.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created with the implementation of this amendment.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
proposed amendment 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 amendment does not adversely 
affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment 
assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment 
does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their 
design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and 
to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of 
performing their design function.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new 
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 
1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable 
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire 
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative 
to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 
33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, which may include 
engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire 
modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the 
performance-based methods do not result in a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Mitchell S. Ross, P.O. Box 14000, Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-364, Joseph M. 
Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Houston County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: January 18, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: On June 13, 2003, the NRC issued 
Amendment No. 151 for FNP Unit 2 which added Note 3 to Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 and created new SR 3.4.11.4. Note 3 to SR 
3.4.11.1 eliminated the requirement to cycle the Unit 2 Pressurizer 
Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV) 02B31 MOV8000B during the remainder 
of operating Cycle 16. This amendment also added SR 3.4.11.4 as a 
compensatory action for the block valve while SR 3.4.11.1 was 
suspended. This license amendment request proposes to delete Note 3 
from SR 3.4.11.1 and delete SR 3.4.11.4 entirely from the FNP Unit 2 
TS. This change is administrative in nature, because Cycle 16 for FNP 
Unit 2 has been completed; FNP Unit 2 is currently operating in Cycle 
22. Therefore, SR 3.4.11.1 Note 3 and SR 3.4.11.4 are no longer 
applicable.
    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 change will remove Note 3 from Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 and delete SR 3.4.11.4 from the Joseph M. 
Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS). SR 
3.4.11.1 Note 3 was

[[Page 60153]]

incorporated into the FNP Unit 2 TS as a result of a license 
amendment request granted to SNC on June 3, 2003, which allowed SNC 
to suspend cycling the Unit 2 Pressurizer Power Operated Relief 
Valve (PORV) Q2B31 MOV8000B during the remainder of operating cycle 
16. Additionally, TS SR 3.4.11.4 was added to provide a compensatory 
action for the block valve while SR 3.4.11.1 was suspended.
    SR 3.4.11.1 Note 3 and SR 3.4.11.1 were applicable for the 
remainder of operating Cycle 16 which has been completed; FNP Unit 2 
is currently operating in Cycle 22. Note 3 to SR 3.4.11.1 and SR 
3.4.11.4 are no longer applicable; therefore, this proposed change 
is administrative in nature.
    This proposed administrative license amendment does not impact 
any accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of 
accident or transient events. The proposed change does not involve 
the addition or removal of any equipment or any design changes to 
the facility. The proposed change does not affect any plant 
operations, design function, or analysis that verifies the 
capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform 
a design function. The proposed change does not change any of the 
accidents previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR). The proposed change does not affect SSCs, operating 
procedures, and administrative controls that have the function of 
preventing or mitigating any of these accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This proposed administrative license amendment does not affect 
actual plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed change 
will not change the design function or operation of any SSCs nor 
result in any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. The 
proposed amendment does not impact any accident initiators, analyzed 
events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

    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: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and 
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, 
Alabama 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 15, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
amend the Technical Specifications (TS) associated with the Low 
Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System and the Pressure and 
Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 
(FNP).
    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:

    As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), Southern Nuclear Operating 
Company (SNC) has evaluated the proposed changes to the FNP TS using 
the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the proposed 
changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. An 
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is 
below:
    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment involves changes to the TS requirements 
to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were 
determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as 
well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and 
temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of the reactor 
vessel. The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during 
operation at low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment 
proposes to adopt the NRC approved and TSTF 213-A and TSTF-419-A. 
Adoption of these TSTFs will relocate the LTOP applicability 
temperature from the TS to the PTLR and will eliminate redundant 
references in Sections 1.1 and 5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed 
change includes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements 
that are consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable 
safety analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved 
methods, and NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for 
Westinghouse Plants.
    The proposed change to the TS does not affect the initiators of 
any analyzed accident. In addition, operation in accordance with the 
proposed TS change ensures that the previously evaluated accidents 
will continue to be mitigated as analyzed. Thus, the proposed change 
does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any 
structures, systems, and components important to safety.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed 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 amendment involves changes to the TS requirements 
to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were 
determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as 
well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and 
temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of the reactor 
vessel. The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during 
operation at low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment 
proposes to adopt the NRC approved TSTF-233-A and TSTF-419-A 
Adoption of these TSTFs will relocate the L TOP applicability 
temperature from the TS to the PTLR and will eliminate redundant 
references in Sections 1.1 and 5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed 
change includes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements 
that are consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable 
safety analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved 
methods and NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for Westinghouse 
Plants. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration 
of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The proposed change does not create any new failure 
modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. 
Additionally the proposed change does not involve a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation and all safety functions 
will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses. 
The pressure and temperature limit curves will continue to preserve 
the integrity of the reactor vessel. The LTOP System will continue 
to ensure that the appropriate fracture toughness margins are 
maintained to protect against reactor vessel failure during low 
temperature operation. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely 
affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, 
and components important to safety.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment involves changes to the TS requirements 
to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were 
determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as 
well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and 
temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of reactor vessel. 
The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during operation at 
low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment proposes to adopt 
the NRC approved TSTF-233-A and TSTF-419-A. Adoption of these TSTFs 
will relocate the LTOP applicability temperature from the TS to the 
PTLR and will eliminate redundant references in Sections 1.1 and 
5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed change

[[Page 60154]]

includes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements that are 
consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable safety 
analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved methods and 
NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for Westinghouse Plants.
    The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of 
plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident 
analysis. The pressure-temperature limit curves and LTOP System 
applicability temperature have been determined in accordance with 
NRC approved methodologies. The proposed changes to the LTOP System 
TS requirements remain consistent with the applicable LTOP System 
design, and preserve the applicable safety analysis assumptions. 
Additionally, no changes are made to the LTOP System function as 
assumed in the applicable safety analysis.
    Therefore, it is concluded that proposed change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the above analysis, SNC concludes that the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, 
under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), ``Issuance of 
Amendment,'' and accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards 
consideration'' is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and 
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, 
Alabama 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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: August 1, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
would revise Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3-10, ``Accident 
Monitoring Instrumentation,'' with respect to the required actions and 
allowed outage times for inoperable instrumentation for Neutron Flux 
(Extended Range) and Neutron Flux--Startup Rate (Extended Range) 
(Instrument Nos. 19 and 23). The required actions will be revised to 
enhance plant reliability by reducing exposure to unnecessary shutdowns 
and increase operational flexibility by allowing more time to implement 
required repairs for inoperable instrumentation. The proposed changes 
are consistent with requirements generically approved as part of NUREG-
1431, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, Revision 
4 (TS 3.3.3, ``Post Accident Monitoring (PAM) Instrumentation'').
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise the actions and allowed outage times 
of the neutron flux (extended range) and neutron flux--startup rate 
(extended range) accident monitoring instrumentation. The 
instrumentation is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased by these proposed changes. 
The Technical Specifications continue to require the instrumentation 
to be operable. Therefore, the neutron flux (extended range) and 
neutron flux--startup rate (extended range) instrumentation will 
continue to provide sufficient information on selected plant 
parameters to monitor and assess these variables following an 
accident. The consequences of an accident during the extended 
allowed outage times are the same as the consequences during the 
current allowed outage time. As a result, the consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by 
these proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase 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 do not alter the design, physical 
configuration, or mode of operation of the plant. The neutron flux 
(extended range) and neutron flux--startup rate (extended range) 
accident monitoring instrumentation is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated. No changes are being made to the 
plant that would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. The 
proposed changes do not affect any other plant equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
analyzed.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not change the operation, function, or 
modes of the plant or equipment operation. The proposed changes do 
not change the level of assurance that the neutron flux (extended 
range) and neutron flux--startup rate (extended range) accident 
monitoring instrumentation will be available to perform its 
function. The proposed changes provide a more appropriate time to 
restore the inoperable channel(s) to operable status, and only apply 
when one or more channels of the required instrument are inoperable. 
The additional time to restore an inoperable channel to operable 
status is appropriate based on the low probability of an event 
requiring a neutron flux (extended range) accident monitoring 
instrument during the interval, providing a reasonable time for 
repair, and other means which may be available to obtain the 
required information.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a reduction in 
a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 10, 2012 (SQN-TS-12-02).
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to adopt a 
revised hydrologic analysis for the SQN, Units 1 and 2 sites. These 
proposed changes are consistent with the latest approved hydrology 
calculations. The proposed changes in the updated hydrologic analysis 
include updated input information, and updates to methodology that 
includes use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Modeling 
System and River Analysis System software. As a result of these 
proposed changes, the design basis flood (DBF) elevations are revised. 
These changes are determined to impact existing flooding protection 
requirements for several safety-related systems, structures, or 
components (SSCs), which include the spent fuel pit cooling pump motors 
and applicable equipment required for flood mode operation located in 
the diesel generator building. To restore margin for the spent fuel pit 
cooling pump motors, the spent fuel pit cooling pump enclosure caps are 
required to be in place in the event of a stage 1 flood warning as a 
compensatory measure. For the diesel generator building, staged 
sandbags to be constructed into a berm at any time

[[Page 60155]]

prior to or during the event of a stage 1 flood warning has been 
established as a compensatory measure.
    TVA will implement a documentation change to require the spent fuel 
pit cooling pump enclosure caps as a permanent plant feature for 
flooding protection, and will install permanent plant modifications to 
provide adequate flooding protection with respect to the DBF level for 
the diesel generator building, by March 31, 2013.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Although the proposed changes require some documentation and 
physical changes to plant systems, structures, or components to add 
flooding protection features to restore or gain additional margin 
between the revised DBF elevations and limiting safety-related 
systems, structures, and components; implementation of these changes 
does not (1) prevent the safety function of any safety-related 
system, structure, or component during an external flood; (2) alter, 
degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in any accident 
described in the SQN Units 1 and 2 UFSAR from being performed since 
the safety-related systems, structures, or components remain 
adequately protected from the effects of external floods; (3) alter 
any assumptions previously made in evaluating radiological 
consequences; or (4) affect the integrity of any fission product 
barrier.
    Therefore, this proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident causal 
mechanisms, nor do they impact any plant systems that are potential 
accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design, 
including instrument set points, that is the basis of the 
assumptions contained in the safety analyses. However, documentation 
changes and permanent plant modifications are planned to restore or 
gain additional margin between the revised DBF elevations and 
limiting safety-related systems, structures, and components. 
Although the results of the updated hydrologic analysis increase the 
DBF elevations required to be considered in the flooding protection 
of safety-related systems, structures, or components during external 
flooding events, the proposed changes do not prevent any safety-
related SSCs from performing their required functions during an 
external flood considering the temporary compensatory measures in 
place and upon completion of planned documentation changes and 
permanent plant modifications. Consistent with existing regulatory 
guidance, including regulatory recommendations and discussions 
regarding calibration of hydrology models using historical flood 
data and consideration of sensitivity analyses, the hydrologic 
analysis is considered to be a reasonable best estimate that has 
accounted for uncertainties using the best data available.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: July 30, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam 
generator tube inspections and reporting as described in TSTF-510, 
Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection 
Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1

    Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    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 an SGTR is not 
increased. The consequences of an SGTR are bounded by the 
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The 
proposed change will not cause the consequences of an SGTR to exceed 
those assumptions. The proposed change to reporting requirements and 
clarifications of the existing requirements have no affect on the 
probability or consequences of SGTR.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2

    Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    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 possibility for a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created.

Criterion 3

    Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    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 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 an 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 this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

[[Page 60156]]

    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 13, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the 
implementation schedule milestone scope and revise the renewed facility 
operating license physical protection license condition (Paragraph 2.E 
of the Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42).
    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 to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change 
does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems 
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed change does not require any plant modifications which 
affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate the consequences of 
postulated accidents, and has no impact on the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan 
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed 
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any 
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in 
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs 
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, 
and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    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.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is 
administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is 
administrative in nature, there is no change to these established 
safety margins.
    Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
[email protected].

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: March 26, 2012, supplemented by 
letter dated April 2, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.1.1.2, TS 
Surveillance Requirement 4.19.2, TS 6.9.6, ``Steam Generator Tube 
Inspection Report,'' and TS 6.19, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' 
changing certain inspection periods and making other administrative 
changes and clarifications. These changes are consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-510, Revision 2, 
``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube 
Sample Selection.''
    Date of issuance: September 4, 2012.
    Effective date: Immediately, and shall be implemented within 60 
days.
    Amendment No.: 279.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised 
the license and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 15, 2012 (77 FR 
28631).
    The supplement dated April 2, 2012, provided an application-
specific no significant hazards determination which was incorporated 
into the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's original 
proposed no significant hazards

[[Page 60157]]

consideration determination, as published in the Federal Register on 
May 15, 2012.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 4, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: April 10, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises 
the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications (TSs). The proposed 
change revises TS 6.7.6.k, Steam Generator (SG) Program, to exclude a 
portion of the tubes below the top of the SG tube sheet from periodic 
tube inspections and plugging. The proposed change also establishes 
permanent reporting requirements in TS 6.8.1.7, Steam Generator Tube 
Inspection Report, that were previously implemented on a temporary 
basis.
    Date of issuance: September 10, 2012.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 131.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the TS 
and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2012 (77 FR 
33248).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 10, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of application for amendment: April 5, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specifications to eliminate the lower allowable value limit of ``>= 18 
minutes'' for Functions 1.e and 2.e, ``Reactor Steam Dome Pressure 
Permissive--Bypass Timer (Pump Permissive),'' in Table 3.3.5.1-1, 
``Emergency Core Cooling System Instrumentation.''
    Date of issuance: September 7, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance, and shall be implemented within 14 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 170.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 1, 2012 (77 FR 
25759).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 7, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 22, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications for the steam generator tube inspection 
program. Specifically, the amendments establish alternate SG tube 
repair criteria for tubing flaws in the lower region of the tubesheet.
    Date of Issuance: September 10, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-167 and Unit 2-149.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 25, 2012.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 10, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: September 29, 2011, as 
supplemented on February 10, March 5, April 5, and May 22, 2012 (TS-
SQN-2011-05).
    Brief description of amendment: During Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 
(SQN), Unit 2, fall 2012 refueling outage (RFO), the replacement steam 
generators will be installed. To support this activity, heavy load 
lifts will be conducted. The proposed amendment added a one-time 
license condition to the SQN, Unit 1 operating license for the conduct 
of heavy load lifts for the Unit 2 steam generator replacement project 
(SGRP). The one-time license condition established special provisions 
and requirements for the safe operation of Unit 1, while large heavy 
load lifts are performed on Unit 2. In addition, a one-time change to 
Unit 1 Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Ultimate Heat Sink,'' is 
also proposed to implement additional restrictions with respect to 
maximum average Essential Raw Cooling Water System supply header water 
temperature during large heavy load lifts performed to support the Unit 
2 SGRP during the fall 2012 RFO.
    Date of issuance: September 6, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 330.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-77: Amendment revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 27, 2011 (76 
FR 80977). The supplement letters dated February 10, March 5, April 5, 
and May 22, 2012, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 2012.
    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 media to provide notice to the public in

[[Page 60158]]

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 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 ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, 
located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on the 
Internet at the NRC 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 60159]]

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 NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance 
in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With 
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve 
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of application for amendment: July 17, 2011, as supplemented 
by two letters dated August 9, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Final Safety 
Analysis Report (FSAR) Section 9.7.2.1.2, and Appendix B to provide 
additional operating margin for measurement of the Ultimate Heat Sink 
(UHS) temperature. The proposed change to Appendix B is to remove a 
license condition that is no longer needed.
    Date of issuance: August 10, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days. Amendment No.: 311.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the License and Appendix B.

[[Page 60160]]

    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, and final determination of no significant 
hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 
10, 2012.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: George A. Wilson.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of September 2012.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-24285 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P