[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50534-50541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20232]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0193]


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

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or 
combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission 
that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from August 8, 2012 to August 21, 2012. The last 
biweekly notice was published on August 7, 2012 (77 FR 47123).

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by 
searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-0193. 
You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0193. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     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-2012-0193 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0193.
     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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Documents may be viewed in 
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0193 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should

[[Page 50535]]

inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information 
in their comment submissions that they do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. Your request should state that the NRC will not edit comment 
submissions to remove such information before making the comment 
submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions 
into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of 
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 
which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC 
Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including 
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC 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.

[[Page 50536]]

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

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: July 23, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
conform the Millstone Power Station Unit 3 (MPS3) licenses to reflect a 
name change for Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) 
resulting

[[Page 50537]]

from a subsequent restructuring in which CVPS will be consolidated with 
Gaz M[eacute]tro's other electric utility subsidiary in Vermont, Green 
Mountain Power Corporation.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required in Sec.  50.91(a) of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. Operation of the facility would not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This request is for an administrative change only. No actual 
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the 
proposed change.
    Therefore, this request will have no impact on the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Operation of the facility would not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This request is for an administrative change only. No actual 
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the 
proposed change and no failure modes not bounded by previously 
evaluated accidents will be created.
    Therefore, this request will not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Operation of the facility would not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant 
System pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. This request is for an 
administrative change only. No actual plant equipment or accident 
analyses will be affected by the proposed change. Additionally, the 
proposed change will not relax any criteria used to establish safety 
limits, will not relax any safety system settings, and will not 
relax the bases for any limiting conditions of operation.
    Therefore, this proposed change will 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: George A. Wilson.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit 3, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: February 6, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will 
revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to allow use of the 
Backup Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System when the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling 
System is out of service.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required in 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?
    No. The proposed changes revise the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow using the Backup Spent Fuel Pool 
Cooling System (BSFPCS) as a stand-alone system when the Spent Fuel 
Pool Cooling System (SFPCS) is out of service for maintenance and 
repair. The SFPCS is allowed to be taken out for maintenance and 
repairs. The current design, if the SFPCS were out of service due to 
maintenance, repair or failure, would be to add make up water to the 
SFP to provide cooling and prevent loss of water level due to 
boiling. The use of the BSFPCS during times when the SFPCS is out of 
service for maintenance and repairs provides alternate cooling to 
limit the SFP temperature during these periods. The failure of the 
SFPCS and the addition of water is not an accident and consequences 
are not evaluated. Therefore, the BSFPCS does not mitigate 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Similarly, the 
BSFPCS is not the initiator of any accident.
    Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed changes revise the UFSAR to allow using the 
BSFPCS when the SFPCS is out of service for maintenance and repair. 
The proposed changes involve the use of alternate equipment but 
failures do not result in different consequences from those of the 
existing system. The proposed revision to use the BSFPCS as a stand-
alone system is not a change to the way that existing equipment is 
operated. The change involves the use of an alternate cooling system 
but the design is not associated with accident initiation so no new 
accident initiators are created. The proposed change involves 
administrative controls to assure the system capability.
    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?
    No. The proposed changes revise the UFSAR to allow using the 
BSFPCS as a stand-alone system when the SFPCS is out of service for 
maintenance and repair. The SFPCS is considered more robust than the 
BSFPCS in terms of its capability to restore operation with a hotter 
spent fuel pool. However, the BSFPCS will be used as a standalone 
system only when taking the SFPCS out of service for maintenance and 
repair. The current allowance is to take the SFPCS out of service 
for repairs so the BSFPCS will provide margin to reduce the 
likelihood of SFP boiling. While in service, a postulated moderate 
energy line break in the BSFPCS can increase the amount of water 
that can be lost from the SFP. However, the reduced level does not 
affect the ability to supply makeup water to the SFP to raise the 
level and provide cooling so there is no significant reduction in 
the margin for 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: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

[[Page 50538]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352 and No. 50-353, 
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

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

    Date of amendment request: July 6, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specification (TS) Sections 5.3.1/6.3.1, ``Unit 
(or Facility) Staff Qualifications,'' for operator license applicants 
with the current industry standards for education and eligibility 
requirements. The proposed amendment would permit changes to the unit 
(or facility) staff qualification education and experience eligibility 
requirements for licensed operators. The proposal will bring Exelon 
Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) into alignment with current industry 
practices.
    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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The NRC considered the impact of previously evaluated accidents 
during the rulemaking process, and by promulgations of the revised 
10 CFR Part 55 rule, determined that this impact remains acceptable 
when licensees have an accredited licensed operator training program 
which is based on a system approach to training (SAT). EGC maintains 
an institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) National Academy for 
Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited program which is based on a SAT. 
The NRC has concluded in RIS 2001-01, ``Eligibility of Operator 
License Applicants,'' and NUREG-1021, ``Operator Licensing 
Examination Standards For Power Reactors,'' that standards and 
guidelines applied by INPO in their accredited training programs are 
equivalent to those put forth by or endorsed by the NRC. Therefore, 
maintaining an INPO accredited SAT-based licensed operator training 
program is equivalent to maintaining an NRC approved licensed 
operator training program which conforms to applicable NRC 
Regulatory Guidelines or NRC endorsed industry standards. The 
proposed changes conform to NANT ACAD 10-001 licensed operator 
education and experience eligibility requirements.
    Based on the above, Exelon concludes that the proposed changes 
do not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment involves changes to the licensed operator 
training programs, which are administrative in nature. The EGC 
licensed operator training programs have been accredited by National 
Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB) and are based on a SAT, which the 
NRC has previously found to be acceptable.
    Based on the above discussion, EGC concludes that the proposed 
changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes are administrative in nature. The 
proposed TS changes do not affect plant design, hardware, system 
operation, or procedures for accident mitigation systems. The 
proposed changes do not significantly impact the performance or 
proficiency requirements for licensed operators. As a result, the 
ability of the plant to respond to and mitigate accidents is 
unchanged by the proposed TS changes. Therefore, these changes do 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above evaluation of the three criteria, EGC 
concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant 
hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 
50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards 
consideration'' is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael Dudek.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 1, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for VEGP Units 3 and 4, 
respectively, in regard to the concrete and reinforcement details 
specified compressive strength for the nuclear island basemat. The 
basemat is the common 6-foot-thick, cast-in-place, and reinforced 
concrete foundation for the nuclear island structures, consisting of 
the containment, shield building, and auxiliary building. The departure 
from the Tier 2* information involves changing the concrete specified 
compressive strength from 4000 psi to 5000 psi for the basemat in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Subsection 3.8.4.6.1.1 and 
removing the 0'' dimension from the Lower-Section detail that 
represents the basemat below the exterior wall in UFSAR Figure 3H.5-3.
    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 design function of the basemat is to provide the interface 
between the nuclear island structures and the supporting soil. The 
basemat transfers the load of nuclear island structures to the 
supporting soil. The basemat

[[Page 50539]]

transmits seismic motions from the supporting soil to the nuclear 
island.
    The change to the concrete/rebar details for the basemat does 
not have an adverse impact on the response of the basemat and 
nuclear island structures to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions 
or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident 
conditions because there is not an adverse change to the seismic 
floor response spectra and transient and postulated accidents are 
not affected by seismic motions. The change to the concrete/rebar 
details for the basemat does not impact the support, design, or 
operation of mechanical and fluid systems because [the] change in 
the loads on these systems due to seismic motions is negligible. 
There is no change to the design of plant systems or the response of 
systems to anticipated transients and postulated accident 
conditions. The basemat supports the structures and the mechanical 
system and component supports. There is no change to this function. 
Because the change to the concrete/rebar details does not change the 
response of systems to postulated accident conditions and is 
unrelated to any accident source term parameters, there is no change 
to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident 
conditions. Therefore, there is no change to the consequences of an 
accident before or after implementation of the proposed amendment. 
The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external 
events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described 
create any new accident precursors. Therefore, there is no 
difference between the probability of a seismically induced event 
before or after the implementation of the proposed amendment. The 
concrete specified compressive strength and 0'' dimension are not 
parameters considered as an initiator for any accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, there is no difference in the probability or 
consequences of a seismically induced event before or after 
implementation of the proposed amendment.
    Based on the considerations outlined above, 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 proposed change is an increase in the concrete specified 
compressive strength for the basemat and a change in the 
reinforcement details. The change to the concrete/rebar details does 
not change the design function of the basemat or nuclear island 
structures. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not change 
the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and 
fluid systems. Because the basemat will be designed to the American 
Concrete Institute (ACI) Codes specified in the UFSAR and the 
concrete will be specified, mixed, batched and placed to the same 
codes and standards specified in the UFSAR, the change to the 
concrete/rebar details does not result in a new failure mechanism 
for the basemat or new accident precursors. As a result, the design 
function of the basemat is not adversely affected by the proposed 
change.
    Therefore, the proposed change will 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 margin of safety for the design of the seismic Category I 
structures including the basemat is determined by the use of the ACI 
349 code and the analyses of the structures required by the UFSAR. 
The change to the concrete/rebar details does not have an adverse 
impact on the strength of the basemat. The change to the concrete/
rebar details does not have an adverse impact on the seismic design 
spectra or the structural analysis of the basemat or other nuclear 
island structures. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not 
significantly impact the analysis requirements or results for the 
nuclear island for bearing, settlement, construction sequence, 
sliding, or overturning, because there is no change in the analysis 
assumptions for density, weight, friction, or seismic motions due to 
the increase in the concrete specified compressive strength. There 
is no increase in the portions of the basemat subject to predicted 
lift-off (zero contact force) during seismic motions analyzed for 
the safe shutdown earthquake. There is minimal change to soil 
pressures on the basemat due to the change in stiffness of the 
basemat. As a result, the design function of the basemat is not 
adversely affected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change will 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. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Mark E. Tonacci.
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 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, 
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: July 21, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specifications 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank 
(RWST),'' and 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray System.''
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-269 and Unit 2-265.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments

[[Page 50540]]

revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 20, 2012 (77 FR 
16274).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: July 20, 2011, as supplemented by letter 
dated May 10, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The licensee will be replacing the 
two Waterford 3 steam generators (SGs) during the 18th refueling 
outage, which will commence in the fall of 2012. The existing Waterford 
3 SG Program under Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.9, ``Steam 
Generator (SG) Program,'' contains an alternate repair criterion for SG 
tube inspections that is no longer applicable to the replacement SGs. 
Additionally, the replacement SGs will contain improved Alloy 690 
thermally treated tubing material, which extends the SG tubing 
inservice inspection frequencies beyond that currently allowed by the 
Waterford TSs. The amendment modified TS 3/4.4.4, ``Steam Generator 
(SG) Tube Integrity,'' TS 6.5.9, and TS 6.9.1.5, ``Steam Generator Tube 
Inspection Report,'' to reflect the above changes.
    Date of issuance: July 31, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the first SG tube inservice inspection for the replacement 
SGs.
    Amendment No.: 236.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 4, 2011 (76 FR 
61395). The supplemental letter dated May 10, 2012, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: August 10, 2011, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 30 and June 19, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1 pertaining to periodic 
verification of battery bank capacity and inter-cell and connection 
resistance.
    Date of issuance: August 8, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 3-252 and Unit 4-248.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 18, 2011 (76 FR 
64392). The supplements dated April 30 and June 19, 2012, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 8, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: May 25, 2011, as supplemented by letter 
dated June 29, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment deletes an 
outdated reference to a specific date delineated in License Condition 
2.B.(2) to be consistent with the wording found in the corresponding 
license condition at multiple stations including Nine Mile Point Unit 2 
and Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the proposed amendment 
removes the words, ``as of February 4, 1976,'' from License Condition 
2.B.(2). This license condition authorizes NMPNS to ``* * * receive, 
possess and use at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel, 
in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for 
reactor operation, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report as 
supplemented and amended.''
    Date of issuance: July 30, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
90 days.
    Amendment No.: 213.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: The amendment 
revises the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (76 FR 
37849).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: February 2, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.2, SR 3.5.1.12, and 
SR 3.6.1.5.1 to provide an alternative means for testing of main steam 
system safety/relief valves during various modes of operation.
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance, to be implemented prior to startup from the 2013 
Refueling Outage.
    Amendment No.: 168.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License and Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 6, 2012 (77 FR 
13373).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 9, 2011, as supplemented on 
February 3 and
    March 30, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendments revise 
Technical Specification (TS) to add Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.14 
to TS Table 3.3.1-1, Function 3, the Power Range Neutron Flux High 
Positive Rate Trip function.
    Date of issuance: August 7, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-189 and Unit 2-184.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendments 
changed

[[Page 50541]]

the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 13, 2011 (76 
FR 77572).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of application for amendments: August 27, 2010, as 
supplemented on April 11, 2011, and January 13, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments add a new Action 
to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency 
Ventilation (CREV) System,'' to modify the proposed completion time for 
restoration of inoperable HEPA filters and/or charcoal adsorbers to 7 
days to restore an inoperable HEPA filter and 14 days to restore an 
inoperable charcoal adsorber, provided the flowrate requirements of the 
Ventilation Filter Testing Program are maintained. Additionally, the 
amendments correct errors in Unit 2 TS page header information that 
occurred during issuance of TS pages for a previous amendment.
    Date of issuance: July 30, 2012.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 14 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--282, Unit 2--308, and Unit 3--267.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (75 
FR 74097).
    The supplements dated April 11, 2011, and January 13, 2012, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-20232 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P