[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35058-35066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13689]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0122]


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 16, 2013 to May 28, 2013. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 31978).

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-2013-0122. 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.
    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-2013-0122 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-2013-0122.
     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-2013-0122 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

[[Page 35059]]

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 
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

[[Page 35060]]

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. 
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].

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

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2012, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 25, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 1.39, ``Storage Pattern,'' TS 3.9.18, 
``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage,'' TS 3.9.19, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage 
Patterns,'' TS 5.3.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' TS 5.6.1, ``Criticality,'' 
and TS 5.6.3, ``Capacity'' for MPS-2, as a result of a new criticality 
safety analysis for fuel assembly storage in the MPS-2 fuel storage 
racks.
    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 does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will not affect the physical plant, 
including the spent fuel pool, spent fuel racks, or fuel handling 
equipment. While there will be more regions to consider in the spent 
fuel pool, the process of choosing fuel assembly locations will not 
change other than the regionalization and burnup curves will be 
revised. Also, the process of handling fuel assemblies will not 
change. The MPS-2 program for choosing fuel assembly storage 
locations, and for fuel handling and assuring that the fuel 
assemblies are placed into correct locations will remain in place. 
The success of this program in preventing misloading and dropping of 
a fuel assembly has been historically demonstrated. Thus, the 
probability of a fuel assembly misloading or a fuel assembly drop 
will not significantly increase with the proposed change.
    Multiple postulated accidents were reviewed for the proposed 
change which included several fuel misloading scenarios and a fuel 
assembly drop.
    The criticality analysis concluded that the limiting accident is 
a misloaded fresh fuel assembly. The analysis also concluded that 
this accident requires an additional 800 ppm [parts per million] of 
soluble boron. The total amount of soluble boron required is the 800 
ppm to compensate for the reactivity increase from the fuel assembly 
misload, plus 600 ppm for normal conditions, for a total of 1400 
ppm, which is the same conclusion as the current analysis. The 
current TS require a

[[Page 35061]]

minimum concentration of 1720 ppm soluble boron at all times that 
fuel is in the spent fuel pool. The proposed TS will maintain this 
soluble boron requirement.
    A boron dilution accident was reviewed. There are no changes to 
the plant, plant equipment or operations required by the proposed 
change. Also, the criticality analysis concluded that the current 
soluble boron requirement (> 1720 ppm) bounds the consequences 
associated with the proposed change.
    Thus, there is no change to consequences of a boron dilution 
accident.
    In the case of each accident, Keff [k-effective] 
continues to be less than the licensing limit of 0.95. Thus, it is 
concluded that the consequences of a previously evaluated accident 
remains that same.
    Since the proposed change reduces the number of fuel assemblies 
that can be stored in the fuel storage racks, the current seismic/
structural and heat load analyses bound the proposed change.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    There is no change to the physical plant, including the 
equipment and procedures used to handle fuel (or any heavy load) 
over fuel storage racks, or how the fuel assemblies are stored in 
the storage racks. Thus, there are no new accidents created over and 
above the existing postulated accidents of a fuel misload or a fuel 
assembly drop onto the racks.
    Use of cell blocking devices will no longer be required. The 
cell blocking devices are removable, and can be removed from the 
spent fuel racks. Fuel storage loading requirements will continue to 
be maintained by administrative means. Cell blocking devices are not 
considered to be a sufficient barrier to preclude a fuel misload 
accident, as they are not permanent. The consequences of such an 
accident are the same, whether or not a cell blocker is present. The 
MPS-2 spent fuel pool has been analyzed to accommodate a single 
misload of the highest enrichment fresh fuel assembly in any region 
as well as multiple assembly misloads along the boundary between 
regions. Thus, removing the requirement to use cell blocking devices 
will not create a new accident over and above the existing 
postulated accidents of a fuel misload or a fuel assembly drop onto 
the racks.
    Reducing the number of fuel assemblies that can be stored in the 
fuel storage racks will not create any new or different type of 
accident.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety.
    The licensing requirement for the spent fuel pool is that 
Keff remain less than or equal to 0.95 under all 
postulated accident conditions (misloaded or dropped fuel assembly, 
and boron dilution). These accidents were analyzed for the proposed 
change, and the Keff < 0.95 requirement is met in all 
cases. In addition, the criticality analysis concluded that, under 
normal conditions, the fuel pool Keff will remain less 
than 1.0 with 0 ppm boron in the pool.
    Since the proposed change reduces the number of fuel assemblies 
that can be stored in the fuel storage racks, the current seismic/
structural and heat load analyses' margin of safety bound the 
proposed change.

    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 21, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3.7--Control Rod Drive Mechanisms 
(CRDMs) to provide consistency with the operability requirements of TS 
Table 3.3-1, Reactor Protective Instrumentation, when control rod drive 
mechanisms are energized and capable of withdrawal for MPS-2.
    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

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
change involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This license amendment request proposes to revise the footnote 
in TS 3.1.3.7, CRDMs, to provide consistency with the operability 
requirements of TS Table 3.3-1, Reactor Protective Instrumentation, 
when CRDMs are energized and capable of withdrawal. The proposed 
change to the footnote in TS 3.1.3.7 does not modify the physical 
design or operation of the plant and does not increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change has no impact on the operation of the CRDMs. 
In addition, the design basis accident remains unchanged for the 
postulated events described in the MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report 
(FSAR). Since the initial conditions and assumptions included in the 
safety analyses are unchanged, the consequences of the postulated 
events remain unchanged.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 2

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed 
change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the physical configuration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or introduce any operating configurations not previously evaluated. 
The proposed change does not alter the way any system, structure, or 
component (SSC) functions and does not alter the manner in which the 
plant is operated. The proposed change does not introduce any new 
failure modes and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed 
change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the footnote in TS 3.1.3.7, CRDMs, does 
not involve a change in the operational limits or physical design of 
the plant. The proposed change does not alter the function or 
operation of plant equipment or affect the response of that 
equipment if it is called upon to operate. The proposed change does 
not decrease the scope of equipment currently required to operate or 
subject to surveillance testing, nor does the proposed change affect 
any instrument setpoints or equipment safety functions. The ability 
of operable SSCs to perform their designated safety function is 
unaffected by this proposed change. The proposed change does not 
reduce the margin of safety since it does not affect the assumptions 
in any accident analysis.
    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.

[[Page 35062]]

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

    Date of amendment request: April 3, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification 3.9.16 ``Shielded Cask,'' due to changes to the 
minimum decay time for fuel assemblies adjacent to the spent fuel pool 
cask laydown area for MPS-2.
    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 does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will not affect the physical plant, 
including the spent fuel pool, spent fuel racks, or fuel handling 
equipment. The change increases the calculated dose consequences for 
the limiting radiological event, but the increase is not significant 
since the existing value is a minimal fraction of the acceptance 
criterion. The revised calculated dose remains a small fraction of 
the acceptance criterion.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    There is no change to the physical plant, including the 
equipment and procedures used to handle fuel (or any heavy load) 
over fuel storage racks, or how the fuel assemblies are stored in 
the storage racks. Thus, there are no new accidents created over and 
above the existing postulated spent fuel cask accidents which have 
been evaluated for the proposed change. Reducing the minimum decay 
time for fuel assemblies in the vicinity of the spent fuel cask 
affects the radiological source term (amount and type of 
radioisotopes present in the fuel), but has no influence on the 
postulated accident scenario itself.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety. The licensing requirement for the minimum decay 
time is that radiological dose criteria are met. The limiting 
accident scenario was analyzed for the proposed change, and the dose 
criteria continue to be met. Specifically, the calculated dose 
consequences for the proposed change are and remain a small fraction 
of the acceptance criteria.

    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac 
County, Wisconsin

    Date of application for amendments: January 15, 2013, as 
supplemented on March 1, 2013, and April 18, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Reactor Coolant System 
(RCS) Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR),'' to allow the use 
of two new methodologies for determining RCS pressure and temperature 
limits.
    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 does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or the manner in which the plant is operated and 
maintained. 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.
    There will be no adverse change to normal plant operating 
parameters, engineered safety feature actuation setpoints, accident 
mitigation capabilities, or accident analysis assumptions or inputs. 
The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts 
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public 
radiation exposures.
    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.
    The proposed change does not impose any new or different 
requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The proposed 
change is consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions 
and current plant operating practice. No new accident scenarios, 
transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single 
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. 
Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as designed. 
The change does not result in any event previously deemed incredible 
being made credible. The change does not result in adverse 
conditions or result in any increase in the challenges to safety 
systems.
    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 proposed change does not alter safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation. The 
setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not altered 
by the proposed change. There are no new or significant changes to 
the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or 
consequences. The proposed amendment will not otherwise affect the 
plant protective boundaries, will not cause a release of fission 
products to the public, nor will it degrade the performance of any 
other structures, systems or components important to safety.
    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: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra 
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: March 8, 2013, as supplemented by letter 
dated May 16, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment to the 
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-63

[[Page 35063]]

would modify Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.6.2i, ``Diesel 
Generator Initiation,'' by revising the existing 4.16kV Power Board 
(PB) 102/103 Emergency Bus Undervoltage (Degraded Voltage) Operating 
Time value and updating the Set Point heading title. In addition, 
subsequent to the issuance of the proposed amendment by U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, the NMP1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) Table XV-9, ``Significant Input Parameters to the Loss-Of-
Coolant Accident (LOCA) Analysis,'' would be revised, based on the 
issued amendment, to add a note regarding maximum allowable delay time 
from initiating signal to pump at rated speed settings, to address the 
scenario of degraded grid voltage coincident with a LOCA using the 
revised TS Table 3.6.2i operating time. The TS and UFSAR revisions are 
being made to resolve the Green non-cited violation (NCV) associated 
with the vital bus degraded voltage protection time delay documented in 
NRC Inspection Report (IR) 05000220/201101, ``Nine Mile Point Nuclear 
Station--NRC Unresolved Item Follow-up Inspection Report,'' dated 
January 23, 2012 (Reference 1), specifically, NCV05000220/20 11011-01, 
``Vital Bus Degraded Voltage Time Delay Not Maintained within LOCA 
Analysis Assumptions.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes modify the TS by changing the maximum time 
delay for degraded voltage from <60 seconds to <=24 seconds. The 
proposed change does not affect the probability or consequences of 
any accident. Analysis was conducted and determined that the 
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) will perform its safety 
function with a time delay of 60 seconds from event initiation to 
core spray pump at rated speed resulting in insignificant 
differences in the peak fuel clad temperature (PCT) and maximum 
local oxidation (MLO) for both GE11 and GNF2 fuel types in use at 
NMP1. Additionally, the PCT and the MLO remain below the 10 CFR 
50.46 acceptance criteria of 2200 [deg]F and 17% respectively.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, 
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and 
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered 
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in 
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents are not affected.
    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 change adds an additional time delay due to voltage 
degradation prior to diesel start. The LOCA analysis model is 
unchanged. The maximum time delay from event initiation to core 
spray pump at rated speed input was changed from 35 to 60 seconds to 
model the Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) event coincident with a 
sustained degraded voltage in order to determine that the 10 CFR 
50.46 acceptance criteria is met for this scenario. These changes do 
not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed), and installed 
equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. Thus, 
no new failure modes are introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 affect the function of the reactor 
coolant pressure boundary or its response during plant transients. 
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined; and the operability requirements for 
equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not 
affected. The proposed change modifies the TS by changing the 
maximum time delay for degraded voltage from <60 seconds to <=24 
seconds. By calculating the PCT and MLO using NRC-approved 
methodology for the LOCA coincident with a sustained degraded 
voltage, adequate margins of safety relating to fuel cladding 
integrity are maintained.
    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 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: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel, 
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite 
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 30, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to revise 
the MNGP Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage 
Criticality,'' and TS 4.3.3, ``Fuel Storage Capacity,'' to support fuel 
storage system changes and a revised criticality safety analysis that 
addresses both legacy fuel types and new fuel designs.
    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, with NRC edits in brackets:

    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 change the fuel handling 
processes, fuel storage racks, decay heat generation rate, or the 
SFP [spent fuel pool] cooling and cleanup system. The proposed 
amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously-
evaluated events and accidents: (1) Fuel handling accident (FHA), 
(2) fuel assembly misleading, (3) seismically-induced movement of 
spent fuel storage racks, and (4) loss of spent fuel pool cooling.
    Whereas fuel handling procedures will not be changed materially 
for the new fuel type or the revised criticality methods, the 
probability of a FHA is not increased because the implementation of 
the proposed amendment will employ the same equipment and procedures 
to handle fuel assemblies that are currently used. Therefore, the 
proposed amendment does not increase the probability or occurrence 
of a FHA. In that the proposed amendment does not increase the 
mechanistic damage to a fuel assembly or the radiological source 
term of any fuel assembly, the amendment would not increase the 
radiological consequences of a FHA. With regard to the potential 
criticality consequences of a dropped assembly coming to rest 
adjacent to a storage rack or on top of a storage rack, the results 
are bounded by the current analysis involving a potential missing 
neutron poison plate in the storage rack. The fuel configuration 
caused by a dropped assembly resting on top of loaded storage racks 
is inherently bounded by the assembly misloaded in the storage rack 
because the misloaded assembly is in closer proximity to other 
assemblies along its entire fuel length.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel 
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection 
and fuel handling procedures. The consequences of a fuel misloading 
event (fuel assembly loaded into

[[Page 35064]]

an unapproved location) are not changed because the reactivity 
analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and 
requirements continue to be met for the worst-case fuel misloading 
event.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of occurrence of a seismic event, which is 
considered an Act of God. Also, the consequences of a seismic event 
are not changed because the proposed amendment involves no 
significant change to the types of material stored in SFP storage 
racks or their mass. In this manner, the forcing functions for 
seismic excitation and the resulting forces are not changed. Also, 
particular to criticality, the supporting criticality analysis takes 
no credit for gaps between high-density rack modules so any 
seismically-induced movement between high-density racks that puts 
them in closer proximity would not result in an unanalyzed condition 
with consequences worse than those analyzed. Also, the small 
displacement of the high-density rack closest to the fixed location 
of the low-density rack will not put those racks in a closer 
proximity than that analyzed. In summary, the proposed amendment 
will not increase the probability or consequence of a seismic event.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because 
the changes in fuel criticality limits and introduction of the 
ATRIUM 10XM fuel design have no bearing on the systems, structures, 
and components involved in initiating such an event. The proposed 
amendment does not change the heat load imposed by spent fuel 
assemblies nor does it change the flow paths in the spent fuel pool. 
Therefore, the accident consequences are not increased for the 
proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment involves no new SFP loading 
configurations for current and legacy fuel designs of the nuclear 
plant. The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel 
handling processes, fuel storage racks, decay heat generation rate, 
or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. Further, the new 
fuel type does not introduce any incompatible materials to the spent 
fuel pool environment.
    As such, the proposed changes introduce no new material 
interactions, man-machine interfaces, or processes that could create 
the potential for an accident of a new or different type.
    Operation with the proposed amendment will not create a new or 
different kind of accident because fuel movement will continue to be 
controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. There are no 
changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel 
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements, and analyses 
demonstrate that the proposed storage arrays meet these requirements 
and criteria with adequate margins. Thus, the proposed storage 
arrays cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
    [Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.]
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment was evaluated for its effect on current 
margins of safety for criticality. Although the amendment involves 
changing the subcriticality acceptance limit for the low-density 
storage rack from a value of 0.90 to 0.95, the margin of safety for 
subcriticality is not significantly reduced in that the limit is 
consistent with that of the other storage racks and the regulation 
described by 10 CFR 50.68 (b)(4). The new criticality analysis 
confirms that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment 
continues to meet the required subcriticality margin.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 11, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to reduce 
the reactor steam dome pressure specified in MNGP Technical 
Specifications (TS) 2.0, ``SAFETY LIMITS.'' Specifically, the reactor 
steam dome pressure value specified in TS 2.1.1.1 and TS 2.1.1.2 will 
be reduced from the current 785 psig to 686 psig. The requested change 
supports resolution of a 10 CFR Part 21 condition concerning a 
potential to momentarily violate a reactor core safety limit during a 
pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open) transient.
    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 to the reactor steam dome pressure in 
Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the 
use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits 
that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The 
proposed change is in accordance with an NRC-approved critical power 
correlation methodology and, as such, maintains required safety 
margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor does it alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which 
the plant is operated and maintained.
    The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their 
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating 
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does 
not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it 
require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed 
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the 
method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new 
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures 
are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
    The proposed change does not introduce any new accident 
precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or 
changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. Also, the 
change does not impose any new or different requirements or 
eliminate any existing requirements. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, 
and primary containment) to perform their design functions during 
and following postulated accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR Part 21 
condition by General Electric determined that there was no decrease 
in the safety margin, the Minimum Critical Power Ratio improves 
during the transient, and therefore is not a threat to fuel cladding 
integrity.
    The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 
2.1.1.2 is consistent

[[Page 35065]]

with, and within the capabilities of the applicable NRC-approved 
critical power correlation, and thus continues to ensure that valid 
critical power calculations are performed. No setpoints at which 
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change. 
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety 
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design 
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus, 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed 
change.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

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].

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

    Date of application for amendment: June 8, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 12, 2012, October 22, 2012, and April 24, 2013.
    Brief Description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to add a 1-hour soak time to Limiting Conditions 
for Operation 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 allowing the control rod drive mechanisms 
additional time following substantial rod motion to reach thermal 
equilibrium.
    Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
    Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment No.: 233.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment changed 
the license and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR 
47126). The supplements dated October 12, 2012, October 22, 2012, and 
April 24, 2013, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 5, 2012, as supplemented 
by letters dated May 29, 2012, June 21, 2012, July 6, 2012, July 16, 
2012, August 15, 2012, September 27, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 2, 
2013, and March 7, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications to implement a measurement uncertainty 
recapture power uprate at the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 
(McGuire 1 and 2).
    Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
for McGuire 1 within 30 days of the completion of the facility's end-
of-cycle 23 refueling outage, currently scheduled for the fall of 2014, 
and shall be implemented for McGuire 2 within 30 days of the completion 
of the facility's end-of-cycle 22 refueling outage, currently scheduled 
for the spring of 2014.
    Amendment Nos.: 269 and 249.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 15, 2012 (77 FR 
28630). The supplements dated May 29, 2012, June 21, 2012, July 6, 
2012, July 16, 2012, August 15, 2012, September 27, 2012, November 1, 
2012, January 2, 2013, and March 7, 2013, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: November 3, 2011, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 22, 2011, April 4, 2012, May 17, 
2012, June 21, 2012, August 15, 2012, November 13, 2012, and April 18, 
2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) and Facility

[[Page 35066]]

Operating Licenses (FOLs) to allow the use of neutron absorbing inserts 
in the spent fuel pool storage racks for the purpose of criticality 
control in the spent fuel pools.
    Date of issuance: May 21, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 287 and 290.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the FOLs and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2012 (77 FR 
33247). The letters dated December 22, 2011, April 4, 2012, May 17, 
2012, June 21, 2012, August 15, 2012, November 13, 2012, and April 18, 
2013, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand 
the application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register 
notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 21, 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 16, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 164.
    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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-13689 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P