[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56877-56883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22698]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0213]


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 or the 
Commission) 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 23 to September 5, 2012. The last 
biweekly notice was published on September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53923).

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, 
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0213. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0213. 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:

[[Page 56878]]

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0213 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-2012-0213.
     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-2012-0213 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions 
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should 
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such 
information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of 
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 
which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC 
Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include

[[Page 56879]]

sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be 
limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would 
entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who 
fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including 
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at 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 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

[[Page 56880]]

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. 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 23, 2012, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 3, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will 
revise Technical Specification 3.7.4, ``Atmospheric Dump Valves 
(ADVs),'' limiting condition for operation (LCO) to require four rather 
than three ADVs to be operable. The licensee states that the current 
LCO is non-conservative and is being addressed in accordance with 
Administrative Letter 98-10.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review 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 current LCO requires three atmospheric dump valves to be 
operable. The proposed change would be an administrative change to 
require that all four atmospheric dump valves be operable during the 
applicable operating modes.
    Operating experience has demonstrated that ADVs are significant 
to public health and safety. ADVs are not the initiators of any 
accident because a failed open ADV can be isolated with a block 
valve. ADVs are available to cool the unit to residual heat removal 
entry conditions should the preferred heat sink via the steam bypass 
system to the condenser not be available. ADVs are also available to 
limit the releases during a steam generator tube rupture 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?
    Response: No.
    There are no changes to design, no changes to operating 
procedures and the revised LCO is consistent with the normal 
operating condition. Also, the ADVs are not the initiators of any 
accident because a failed open ADV can be isolated with a block 
valve.
    Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is administrative in nature. Revising the 
LCO to require all four ADVs to be operable during the applicable 
operating modes adds conservatism to the technical specifications 
and does not reduce any margin of safety.
    Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    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.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: July 25, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Appendix A of the Operating License to except Prairie Island 
Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 2 from the requirements of Regulatory 
Guide 1.163, as specified in Technical Specification 5.5.14, 
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' for post-modification 
containment leak rate testing associated with steam generator 
replacement.
    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 would provide the Prairie Island Nuclear 
Generating Plant an exception from performing a containment 
integrated leak rate test following the replacement of the steam 
generators in Unit 2.
    Integrated leak rate tests are performed to assure the leak-
tightness of the primary containment boundary system, and as such 
they are not accident initiators. Therefore, not performing an 
integrated leak rate test will not affect the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The intent of post-modification integrated leak rate testing 
requirements is to assure the leak-tight integrity of the area 
affected by the modification. For the Unit 2 steam generator 
replacement modification, this intent will be satisfied by 
performing the inspections and tests required by the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code. Because the leak-
tightness integrity of the primary containment boundary affected by 
the steam generator replacement will be assured, there is no change 
in the primary containment boundary's ability to confine radioactive 
materials during an accident.
    Therefore, adding a Technical Specification statement that 
provides an exception for Unit 2 from the steam generator 
replacement post-modification integrated leak rate testing 
requirements does 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

[[Page 56881]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change would provide the Prairie Island Nuclear 
Generating Plant an exception from performing a required containment 
integrated leak rate test following the replacement of the steam 
generators in Unit 2.
    Providing an exception from performing a test does not involve a 
physical change to the plant nor does it change the operation of the 
plant. Thus, it cannot introduce a new failure mode. Therefore, 
adding a Technical Specification statement that provides an 
exception for Unit 2 from the steam generator replacement post-
modification integrated leak rate testing requirements 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.
    The proposed change would provide the Prairie Island Nuclear 
Generating Plant an exception from performing a required containment 
integrated leak rate test following the replacement of the steam 
generators in Unit 2.
    The intent of post-modification integrated leak rate testing 
requirements is to assure the leak-tight integrity of the area 
affected by the modification. This intent will be satisfied by 
performing inspections and tests required by the ASME Code. The 
acceptance criterion for ASME Code system pressure testing for the 
base metal and welds is no leakage. In addition, the test pressure 
for the hydrostatic tests and the inservice system pressure test 
will be several times that required during an integrated leak rate 
test. Because the leak-tight integrity of the primary containment 
boundary affected by the steam generator replacement will be 
assured, there is no change in the primary containment boundary's 
ability to confine radioactive materials during an accident. 
Therefore, adding a Technical Specification statement that provides 
an exception for Unit 2 from the steam generator replacement post 
modification integrated leak rate testing requirements 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos.: 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: July 25, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specifications (TS) 3.4.19--``Steam Generator (SG) 
Tube Integrity,'' 5.5.8--``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and 5.6.7--
``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report'' to apply the appropriate 
program attributes to the Unit 2 replacement steam generators that are 
planned for installation in fall 2013. The proposed amendment would 
also revise the same TS described above to adopt for Unit 1 and Unit 2 
the program improvements in Technical Specifications Task Force 
Traveler (TSTF) 510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program 
Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes associated with Technical Specification 
Task Force Traveler (TSTF) 510 revise the Steam Generator (SG) 
Program to modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity 
and SG tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 
event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part 
of a plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection 
frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that 
the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is 
not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the 
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The 
proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed 
those assumptions.
    The proposed changes associated with Unit 2 SG replacement 
preserve the intent of the PlNGP TS for the new plant configuration 
following Unit 2 steam generator replacement. In effect, these 
changes will eliminate the SG tube repair criteria that were only 
applicable to the original SGs that will be replaced. These changes 
will ensure that the Unit 2 replacement SGs are subject to the 
inservice inspection, testing, and reporting criteria that are 
applicable to their design as approved for use with TSTF-510.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does 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 changes to the Steam Generator Program associated 
with TSTF-510 will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant 
design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube 
degradation. The proposed change does not affect the design of the 
SGs or their method of operation. In addition, the proposed change 
does not impact any other plant system or component.
    The proposed changes associated with Unit 2 SG replacement 
preserve the intent of the PlNGP TS for the new plant configuration 
following Unit 2 steam generator replacement. In effect, these 
changes will eliminate the SG tube repair criteria that were only 
applicable to the original SGs that will be replaced. Such 
programmatic changes do not affect the design of the SGs or their 
method of operation. In addition, these programmatic changes do not 
impact any other plant system or component.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part 
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied 
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As 
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are 
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface 
between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat 
can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes 
also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant 
from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG 
is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
    Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, 
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed 
changes do not affect tube design or operating environment. The 
proposed changes will continue to require monitoring of the physical 
condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in 
the margin of safety compared to the current requirements.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

[[Page 56882]]

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: June 13, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
selectively implement an Alternate Source Term (AST) methodology in 
accordance with Regulatory Position C.1.2.2 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design 
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' by modifying the WBN, Unit 
1 licensing basis for determining offsite and Control Room doses due to 
a Fuel Handling Accident (FHA). A license amendment is required for AST 
implementation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The equipment affected by the proposed changes is mitigative in 
nature, and relied upon after an accident has been initiated. 
Application of the AST does not involve any physical changes to the 
plant design. While the operation of various systems will change as 
a result of these proposed changes, these systems are not accident 
initiators. Application of the AST is not an initiator of a design 
basis accident. The proposed changes to the TS [technical 
specifications], while they revise certain performance requirements, 
do not involve any physical modifications to the plant. As a result, 
the proposed changes do not affect any of the parameters or 
conditions that could contribute to the initiation of any accidents. 
As such, removal of operability requirements during the specified 
conditions will not significantly increase the probability of 
occurrence for an accident previously analyzed. Since design basis 
accident initiators are not being altered by adoption of the AST 
analysis of the FHA, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not affected.
    The dose consequences of a FHA have been re-evaluated utilizing 
the AST methodology recognized by 10 CFR 50.67 and the guidance 
contained within Regulatory Guide 1.183. Based upon the results of 
this analysis, TVA has demonstrated that, with the requested 
changes, the dose consequences of the FHA are within the appropriate 
acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2) and Table 6 of RG 1.183. 
The AST involves quantities, isotopic composition, chemical and 
physical characteristics, and release timing of radioactive material 
for use as inputs to the dose analysis of the FHA. Selective 
implementation of the AST does not create any conditions that could 
significantly increase the consequences of any of the events being 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would not require any new or different 
accidents to be postulated, since no changes are being made to the 
plant that would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. This 
license amendment request does not impact any plant systems that are 
potential accident initiators. The AST methodology involves 
quantities, isotopic composition, chemical and physical 
characteristics, and release timing of radioactive material for use 
as inputs to the dose analysis of the FHA.
    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.
    TVA is proposing to modify the methodology for responding to a 
FHA. Selective implementation of the AST methodology is relevant 
only to the calculated dose consequences for the FHA. The 
radiological analysis of the FHA does not credit containment 
isolation, operation of the Auxiliary Building Gas Treatment System, 
or operation of the Reactor Building Purge Air Cleanup Units. The 
results of the revised dose consequences analysis demonstrate that 
the regulatory acceptance criteria regarding onsite and offsite 
doses are met for the FHA.
    In addition, the selective implementation of the AST methodology 
does not affect the transient behavior of non-radiological 
parameters (e.g., RCS [reactor coolant system] pressure, Containment 
pressure) that are pertinent to a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

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 Commission'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.

[[Page 56883]]

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

    Date of application for amendment: December 20, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised technical 
specifications (TS) requirements related to primary containment 
isolation instrumentation. The changes are in accordance with NRC 
approved TS Task Force (TSTF), Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (ISTS) change TSTF-306, Revision 2.
    Date of issuance: August 29, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 189.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 3, 2012 (77 FR 
20073).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 29, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-315, Donald C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: September 29, 2011, as 
supplemented on July 25, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 4.2.1, adding Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ clad fuel rods to 
the fuel matrix in addition to Zircaloy or ZIRLO\TM\ clad fuel rods 
that are currently in use. The amendment also added a Westinghouse 
topical report regarding Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ as Reference 8 in TS 
5.6.5.b, which lists the analytical methods used to determine the core 
operating limits.
    Date of issuance: August 23, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 302.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-58: Amendment revised the 
Renewed Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 29, 2011 (76 
FR 73731). The licensee's July 25, 2012, supplemental letter contained 
clarifying information, did not change the scope of the original 
license amendment request, did not change the NRC staff's initial 
proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration determination, 
and did not expand the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: September 29, 2011, as 
supplemented by letter dated March 12, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment modified existing 
Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.2, SR 
3.5.1.9, and SR 3.6.1.5.1, to provide an alternate means for testing of 
the steam safety/relief valves (SRVs). The change allows for 
demonstrating the capability of the SRVs to perform their function 
without requiring the valves to be cycled with steam pressure while 
installed in the plant in accordance with the Inservice Testing 
Program.
    Date of issuance: August 27, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from date of 
issuance.
    Amendment No.: 282.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 12, 2012 (77 FR 
35075).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 27, 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: May 25, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
Monticello licensing basis, approving the removal of automatic transfer 
capability of essential electrical buses to the 1AR transformer due to 
degraded voltage conditions.
    Date of issuance: August 27, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance, and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance, 
except the revision of the updated safety analysis report to reflect 
the revised licensing basis of the 1AR transformer shall follow the 
schedule set forth in 10 CFR 50.71(e).
    Amendment No.: 169.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 26, 2012 (77 FR 
38096).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 27, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of September 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Louise Lund,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-22698 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P