[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31978-31985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12424]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0105]


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

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission 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 May 2, 2013 to May 15, 2013. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 14, 2013 (78 FR 28248).

[[Page 31979]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0105. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
of this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0105 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 is publicly-available, by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0105.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. Documents may be viewed in 
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0105 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

[[Page 31980]]

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

[[Page 31981]]

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, the licensee, Docket Nos. 50-
317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, 
Calvert County, Maryland

    Date of amendments request: January 28, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 1, 2013.
    Description of amendments request: The amendment would revise 
several Technical Specification (TS) to eliminate the second completion 
time by adopting TS Task Force (TSTF)-439-A, Revision 2, ``Eliminate 
Second Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet 
an LCO [limiting condition for operation].''
    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 change proposed by incorporating TSTF-439-A, Revision 2, 
eliminates certain Completion Times from the [TSs]. Completion Times 
are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a 
result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not 
affected. The consequences of an accident during the revised 
Completion Times are no different than the consequences of the same 
accident during the existing Completion Times. As a result, the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by 
this change. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the 
ability of structures, systems, or components from performing their 
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating 
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    The proposed change to modify certain Completion Times does not 
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological 
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change 
does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that 
may be released offsite, nor significantly increase the cumulative 
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant 
consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed changes do not alter any assumptions made in 
the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time and the 
related example of second Completion Times does not alter the manner 
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or [LCOs] 
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 
affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven L. Miller, General Counsel, 
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC., 100 Constellation Way, Suite 
200c, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.

[[Page 31982]]

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-325, Brunswick Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit 1, Brunswick County, North Carolina

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 20, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
the corporate name of the licensee in each facility's operating license 
from Carolina Power & Light Company to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
    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?
    The proposed amendments involve a change of the corporate name 
of Carolina Power & Light Company to Duke Energy Progress, Inc. The 
proposed amendments do not involve any change in the technical 
qualifications of the licensee or the plant's design, configuration, 
or operation. All Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety 
System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the Technical 
Specifications remain unchanged. Also, the physical security plan 
and related plans, the operator training and requalification 
program, the quality assurance program, and the emergency plan will 
not be materially changed by the proposed corporate name change. The 
corporate name change amendments will not affect the executive 
oversight provided by the Chief Nuclear Officer and his staff.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve any increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
analyzed.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    The proposed amendments do not involve any change in the plant's 
design, configuration, or operation. The current plant design, 
design bases, and plant safety analysis will remain the same.
    The Limiting Conditions for Operations, Limiting Safety System 
Settings, and Safety Limits specified in the Technical 
Specifications are not affected by the proposed corporate name 
change. As such, the plant conditions for which the design basis 
accident analysis was performed remain valid.
    The proposed amendments do not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation or new accident precursors, do not involve any physical 
alterations to the plant's configuration, or make changes to system 
setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do 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 
the margin of safety?
    The proposed amendments do not involve a change in the plant's 
design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendments affect 
neither the way in which the plant's structures, systems, and 
components perform their safety function nor its design and 
licensing bases.
    Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions 
for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits 
specified in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no 
change to the physical design of the plant, there is no change to 
any of these margins.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C 
DEC45A, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 8, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The license amendment request 
proposes a one-time (temporary) extension of Technical Specification 
(TS) Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.1.d involving an operability 
demonstration of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) accumulator check 
valves. The requested surveillance extension will allow 2 months more 
than the currently specified refueling outage interval of 18 months 
plus 4.5-month grace period and facilitate the plant's ability to 
optimize fuel burn-up during the current 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 requested action is a one-time extension to the performance 
interval of one TS surveillance requirement. The performance of the 
surveillance, or the failure to perform the surveillance, is not a 
precursor to an accident. Performing the surveillance or failing to 
perform the surveillances does not affect the probability of an 
accident. Therefore, the proposed delays in performance of the 
surveillance requirement in this amendment request does not increase 
the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    A delay in performing the surveillance does not result in a 
system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of 
this one-time extension request, the relatively short period of 
additional time that the system and components will be in service 
before the next performance of the surveillance will not affect the 
ability of the system to operate as designed noting that no time-
dependent failure modes have been identified for the subject check 
valves.
    The ECCS accumulators will remain capable of performing their 
required safety function. No new failure modes have been introduced 
because of this action, and the consequences remain consistent with 
previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the proposed delay in the 
performance of the surveillance requirement in this amendment 
request does not involve a significant increase in the consequences 
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 amendment does not involve a physical alteration of 
any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any 
SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation 
of any SSC in a manner or configuration different from those 
previously recognized or evaluated. The subject check valves do not 
have any time-dependent failure modes and no new failure mechanisms 
will be introduced by the one-time surveillance extension being 
requested.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the 
performance interval for one TS surveillance requirement. Extending 
the surveillance requirement does not involve a modification of any 
TS Limiting Condition for Operation. Extending the surveillance 
frequency does not involve a change to any limit on accident 
consequences specified in

[[Page 31983]]

the license or regulations. Extending the surveillance frequency 
does not involve a change to how accidents are mitigated or a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Extending 
the surveillance frequency does not involve a change in a 
methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending 
the surveillance frequency does not involve a change in any 
operating procedure or process.
    The components involved in this request have exhibited reliable 
operation based on the results of past 18-month surveillance tests 
over the last six refueling outages. Based on the limited additional 
period of time that the systems and components will be in service 
before the surveillances are next performed, as well as the 
operating experience that indicates this surveillance has been 
successful when performed, it is reasonable to conclude that any 
margin of safety associated with the surveillance requirement will 
not be affected by the requested extension.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 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: James Petro, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 
33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2013
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specifications (TS) definition of ``Shutdown 
Margin'' (SDM) to adopt TSTF-535, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition 
to Address Advanced Fuel Designs'', which would require calculation of 
the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68[deg]F or a higher 
temperature that represents the most reactive state throughout the 
operating cycle.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an 
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the 
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents 
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for 
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM 
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel 
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed 
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in 
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or 
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types 
at all times during the fuel cycle.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    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. James Petro, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, 
FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 2, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise related Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements 
(SRs) for snubbers to conform to planned revisions of the snubber 
inservice inspection (ISI) program.
    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 would revise SR 4.7.7 to conform the TS to 
the revised ISI program for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing 
and service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubber examination, testing and service life 
monitoring is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. 
Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is 
not significantly increased. Snubbers will continue to be 
demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, 
testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a 
or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to TS ACTION 3.7.7 
for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required 
for consistency with the proposed change to SR 4.7.7. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions 
or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and 
components to perform their design functions.
    Therefore, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased. Based on the above, this change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of 
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by 
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no 
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic 
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing 
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety 
analysis assumptions.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and 
service life monitoring will continue to meet the

[[Page 31984]]

requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be 
demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, 
testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a 
or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to TS ACTION 3.7.7 
for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required 
for consistency with the proposed change to SR 4.7.7.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina 
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 
29218.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 13, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos.: NPF-93 and NPF-94 for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 by departing from the plant-specific 
design control document Tier 2* material by revising reference document 
APP-OCS-GEH-320, ``AP1000 Human Factors Engineering Integrated System 
Validation Plan'' from Revision D to Revision 2. APP-OCS-GEH-320 is 
incorporated by reference in the updated final safety analysis report 
(UFSAR) as a means to implement the activities associated with the 
human factors engineering verification and validation.
    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 Integrated System Validation (ISV) provides a comprehensive 
human performance-based assessment of the design of the AP1000 
Human-System Interface (HSI) resources, based on their realistic 
operation within a simulator-driven Main Control Room (MCR). The ISV 
is part of the overall AP1000 Human Factors Engineering (HFE) 
program. The changes are to the ISV Plan to clarify the scope and 
amend the details of the methodology. The ISV Plan is needed to 
perform, in the simulator, the scenarios described in the document. 
The functions and tasks allocated to plant personnel can still be 
accomplished after the proposed changes. The performance of the 
tests governed by the ISV Plan provides additional assurances that 
the operators can appropriately respond to plant transients. The ISV 
Plan does not affect the plant itself. Changing the ISV Plan does 
not affect prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., 
accidents, anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods 
and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. No safety-
related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely 
affected. The changes do not involve nor interface with any SSC 
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the 
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected. Because the changes do not involve any safety-related SSC 
or function used to mitigate an accident, the consequences of the 
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
    Therefore, there is no 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 changes to the ISV Plan affect the testing and validation of 
the Main Control Room and Human System Interface using a plant 
simulator. Therefore, the changes do not affect the safety-related 
equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment which, if it failed, 
could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product 
barrier. No analysis is adversely affected. No system or design 
function or equipment qualification will be adversely affected by 
the changes. This activity will not allow for a new fission product 
release path, nor will it result in a new fission product barrier 
failure mode, nor create a new sequence of events that would result 
in significant fuel cladding failures. In addition, the changes do 
not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events 
that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.
    Therefore, this activity does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident than any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The changes to the ISV Plan affect the testing and validation of 
the Main Control Room and Human System Interface using a plant 
simulator. Therefore, the changes do not affect the assessments or 
the plant itself. These changes do not affect safety-related 
equipment or equipment whose failure could initiate an accident, nor 
does it adversely interface with safety-related equipment or fission 
product barriers. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested change.

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

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) The 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room

[[Page 31985]]

(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].

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: November 13, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises surveillance 
requirements (SRs) which currently require operating the ventilation 
system for at least 10 continuous hours with the heaters operating 
every 31 days for SR 3.6.4.3.1 and 31 days on a staggered test basis 
for SR 3.7.3.1. The SRs would be changed to require at least 15 
continuous minutes of ventilation system operation every 31 days and 
include technical specification (TS) bases changes that summarize and 
clarify the purpose of the TS in accordance with TS Task Force Traveler 
(TSTF) 522, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to 
operate for 10 Hours per Month.''
    Date of issuance: May 13, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 192.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 22, 2013 (78 FR 
4471).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 13, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No. 50-
440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP), Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify PNPP's Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.3.5.1-1, 
``Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' footnote (a) 
to require ECCS instrumentation to be operable only when the associated 
ECCS subsystems are required to be operable. This proposed change is 
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task 
Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-275-A, Revision 0.
    Additionally, the proposed amendment would add exceptions to the 
diesel generator (DG) surveillance requirements (SRs) for TS 3.8.2, 
``AC Sources--Shutdown,'' to eliminate the requirement that the DG be 
capable of responding to ECCS initiation signals while the ECCS 
subsystems are not required to be operable. This proposed change is 
consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-300-A, Revision 0.
    Date of issuance: May 6, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 163.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 8, 2013 (78 FR 
1270).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, 
Goodhue County, Minnesota

    Date of application for amendments: August 11, 2011, as 
supplemented by letters dated February 21, 2012, July 9, 2012, October 
4, 2012, February 8, 2013, and April 30, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the PINGP 
licensing basis to address plant capability related to the diesel fuel 
oil supplies during a design basis accident with a loss of offsite 
power and a single failure. The amendments also revise the technical 
specification (TS) fuel oil storage volume requirements to reflect the 
new licensing basis, resolve non-conservative emergency diesel 
generator fuel oil supply volumes, incorporate portions of Technical 
Specification Task Force Traveler 501, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and 
Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control,'' and make other 
administrative changes to the TSs.
    Date of issuance: May 9, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 207 and 194.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: 
Amendments revised the Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 13, 2011 (76 
FR 77568).
    The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did 
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 9, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of May 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-12424 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P