[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65720-65727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26355]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0260]


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 October 4, 2012, to October 17, 2012. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63343).

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 2012-0260. 
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 2012-0260. 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 2012-0260 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 2012-0260.
     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 2012-0260 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.

[[Page 65721]]

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``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 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

[[Page 65722]]

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'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. 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-

[[Page 65723]]

415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of application for amendments: August 29, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for the Residual Heat Removal 
(RHR) Drywell Spray function. This function had previously resided in 
the TSs for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, 
but was relocated to a licensee-controlled document, the Technical 
Requirements Manual, as part of the conversion to the improved TSs on 
August 30, 1995. Based on the requirements in 10 CFR 50.36, the 
licensee has determined that the RHR Drywell Spray function needs to be 
re-established in the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, TSs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below with the NRC staff edits in 
square brackets:

    1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to re-establish TS requirements for the RHR 
Drywell Spray function is necessary based on the recognition that 
the current design basis description in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) does not appropriately reflect the effects 
of a Small Steam Line Break (SSLB) accident on peak drywell 
temperatures. The current design basis description describes the 
bounding condition based on the effects of the Design Basis Accident 
(DBA) Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), which is considered the 
Recirculation Suction Line Break (RSLB) accident. Since peak drywell 
temperatures may be higher for the SSLB accident, and the RHR 
Drywell Spray function is credited to limit peak drywell temperature 
following a SSLB, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) apply. 
Specifically, Criterion 3 [of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) requires that a 
TS limiting condition for operation be established for items that 
meet the following]:
    ``A structure, system, or component that is part of the primary 
success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design 
basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or 
presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product 
barrier.''
    The proposed changes to re-establish the RHR Drywell Spray 
requirements in TS do not introduce new equipment or new equipment 
operating modes, nor do the proposed changes alter existing system 
relationships. The proposed changes do not affect plant operation, 
design function, or any analysis that verifies the capability of a 
Structure, System, or Component (SSC) to perform a design function. 
There are no changes or modifications to the RHR system. The RHR 
system will continue to function as designed in all modes of 
operation, including the Drywell Spray function. There are no 
significant changes to procedures or training related to the 
operation of the RHR Drywell Spray function. Primary containment 
integrity is not adversely impacted and radiological consequences 
from the accidents analyzed in the UFSAR are not increased. 
Containment parameters are not increased beyond those previously 
evaluated and the potential for failure of the containment is not 
increased.
    There is no adverse impact on systems designed to mitigate the 
consequences of accidents. The proposed changes do not increase 
system or component pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for 
systems designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the consequences 
of an accident. Since these conditions do not change, the likelihood 
of failure of [a] SSC [to perform its intended function] is not 
increased.
    The proposed changes do not increase the likelihood of the 
malfunction of any SSC or impact any analyzed accident. 
Consequently, the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected.
    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 changes to re-establish the RHR Drywell Spray 
requirements in TS do not alter the design function or operation of 
any SSC. The RHR system will continue to function as designed in all 
modes of operation, including the Drywell Spray function. There is 
no new system component being installed, no new construction, and no 
performance of a new test or maintenance function. The proposed TS 
changes do not create the possibility of a new credible failure 
mechanism or malfunction. The proposed changes do not modify the 
design function or operation of any SSC. The proposed changes do not 
introduce new accident initiators. Primary containment integrity is 
not adversely impacted and radiological consequences from the 
accidents analyzed in the UFSAR are not increased. Containment 
parameters are not increased beyond those previously evaluated and 
the potential for failure of the containment is not increased. The 
proposed changes do not increase system or component pressures, 
temperatures, and flowrates for systems designed to prevent 
accidents or mitigate the consequences of an accident. Since these 
conditions do not change, the likelihood of failure of SSC is not 
increased. Consequently, the proposed changes cannot create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Based on the above discussion, Exelon 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 change to re-establish TS requirements for the RHR 
Drywell Spray function is necessary based on the recognition that 
the current design basis description in the UFSAR does not 
appropriately reflect the effects of a SSLB accident on peak drywell 
temperatures. The current design basis description describes the 
bounding condition based on the effects of the DBA LOCA, which is 
considered the RSLB accident. Since peak drywell temperatures may be 
higher for the SSLB, and the RHR Drywell Spray function is credited 
to limit peak drywell temperature following a SSLB accident, the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) apply. Specifically, 
Criterion 3 [of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) requires that a TS limiting 
condition for operation be established for items that meet the 
following]:
    ``A structure, system, or component that is part of the primary 
success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design 
basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or 
presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product 
barrier.''
    The proposed changes do not increase system or component 
pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for systems designed to 
prevent accidents or mitigate the consequences of an accident. 
Containment parameters are not increased beyond those previously 
evaluated and the potential for failure of the containment is not 
increased.
    The proposed changes to re-establish the RHR Drywell Spray 
function in TS are needed in order to reflect the current design 
basis description related to the SSLB accident. The proposed changes 
do not exceed or alter a design basis or a safety limit for a 
parameter to be described or established in the UFSAR or the Renewed 
Facility Operating License (FOL). Consequently, the proposed changes 
do not result in a reduction in the margin of safety.
    Based on the above, Exelon concludes that the proposed changes 
do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it 
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. 
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General 
Counsel,

[[Page 65724]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 
19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida.

    Date of amendment request: August 10, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs), specifically, the requirements of the 
TSs related to station direct current battery surveillance requirements 
for terminal connection resistances.
    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?
    No. The proposed change will not result in any significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, as the proposed TS change is consistent with 
the methodologies adopted in the LARs [license amendment requests] 
recently accepted by the NRC on Wolf Creek, Catawba, and McGuire. 
The proposed maximum limits of the inter-cell and inter-tier 
resistance values are based on the resistance values obtained from 
the battery monitoring and maintenance programs (implemented via 
preventive maintenance (PM) procedures) at St. Lucie, which are 
based on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers] 450 methodology to maintain the battery cells and 
connections. The battery monitoring and maintenance programs adopted 
at St. Lucie for the safety related battery inter-cell connection 
resistances ensure that the values remain within the required ranges 
of the established baseline values and will remain bounded by the 
proposed maximum inter-cell and inter-tier resistance values. This 
change does not alter any design input used in any accident analysis 
previously performed. The proposed change constitutes an additional 
limitation or restriction on the acceptable range of values of the 
battery inter-cell resistance required to ensure that the batteries 
are able to perform as designed.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not increase the probability 
or consequences of any accident previously evaluated that involves 
any of the safety related batteries or associated equipment powered 
by these batteries.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration 
of the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be 
installed. There is no change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes/
effects which could lead to an accident whose consequences exceed 
the consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
    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 change will not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety. The proposed maximum battery inter-cell and 
inter-tier resistance values are based on the actual measurements 
obtained over the years during the 18 month preventive maintenance 
activities. The measured resistance values are all less than 20% 
above the baseline installed values, which will ensure that design 
limits for battery connection resistance are not exceeded. This 
approach is in accordance with the IEEE 450-1995, Section D.2. This 
methodology also provides a lower average inter-cell connection 
resistance limit than both the existing TS limit of 150 [mu][Omega] 
per cell and the vendor's design limits for each St. Lucie Unit. The 
proposed change to the TS constitutes an additional limitation or 
restriction on the acceptable range of values of the battery inter-
cell resistance required to ensure that the batteries are able to 
perform as designed.
    Thus, this proposed TS change will not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Technical Specifications 
(TS) by modifying existing Surveillance Requirements (SRs) regarding 
the battery terminal and charger voltages and amperage provided in SR 
3.8.4.1 and SR 3.8.4.6.
    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 any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes modify Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 
regarding the battery terminal and charger voltages and amperage 
provided in SR 3.8.4.1 and SR 3.8.4.6. Accidents are initiated by 
the malfunction of plant equipment, or the catastrophic failure of 
plant structures, systems, or components. The performance of battery 
testing is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated and 
does not change the manner in which the batteries are operated. The 
proposed testing requirements will not contribute to the failure of 
the batteries nor any plant structure, system, or component. NextEra 
Energy Duane Arnold has determined that the proposed change in 
testing provides an equivalent level of assurance that the batteries 
are capable of performing their intended safety functions. Thus, the 
proposed changes do not affect the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Verifying battery terminal voltage while on float charge for the 
batteries helps to ensure the effectiveness of the charging system 
and the ability of the batteries to perform their intended function. 
The proposed changes involve the manner in which the subject 
batteries are tested or maintained, and have no effect on the types 
or amounts of radiation released or the predicted offsite doses in 
the event of an accident. The proposed testing requirements are 
sufficient to provide confidence that these batteries are capable of 
performing their intended safety functions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This TS SR change for the batteries is based upon the addition 
of two additional cells to each of the existing DAEC 125 [volts 
direct current] VDC Safety Related Station Batteries (1D1 & 1D2). 
The improved batteries with 60 cells are at least equivalent to the 
existing 58-cell batteries. The batteries, with the added cells, 
provide an acceptable design margin to the existing batteries. 
Battery circuit coordination is not adversely affected by the 
addition of this improved battery with 60 cells. The proposed 
changes to these TS SRs do not introduce any new accident initiators 
or precursors, or any new design assumptions for those components 
used to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
    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 the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The improvement of the existing batteries, with the addition of 
2 cells and the subsequent TS SR changes that verify higher

[[Page 65725]]

minimum terminal voltage on float charge in SR 3.8.4.1 and higher 
125 VDC battery charger voltage with lower amperage in SR 3.4.3.6, 
the improved batteries, and the requirements associated with 
verifying their design functionality, will not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety. The improved batteries are at 
least equivalent to the existing batteries. The additional cells in 
the proposed improved batteries provide an acceptable design margin. 
The increase in the number of cells from 58 to 60 will result in a 
small increase in battery terminal voltage on float charge. These 
proposed TS SRs simply document the verification of the new minimum 
voltage and amperage values. Accordingly, there is no significant 
reduction in the margin of 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. Mitchell S. Ross, Attorney, Florida 
Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.

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

    Date of application for amendments: August 16, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification 5.3, ``Facility Staff Qualifications,'' 
to clarify the required qualifications of the Operations Manager.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is for an administrative change only. No 
actual facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by 
the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This request is for administrative changes only. No actual 
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the 
proposed changes and no failure modes not bounded by previously 
evaluated accidents will be created.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    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[s]) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. This request is for 
administrative changes only. No actual plant equipment or accident 
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the 
proposed changes 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, the proposed amendment would not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: September 26, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed Technical 
Specification (TS) change would revise TS 3.7.14, ``Engineered Safety 
Features (ESF) Room Cooler and Safety-Related Chiller System'' such 
that, with one ESF room cooler and safety-related chiller train 
inoperable, the allowed Completion Time for Condition A is extended 
from 72 hours to 7 days. In addition, this proposed TS change would 
allow 14 days for overhaul maintenance of the safety-related chiller 
system to be performed. Also proposed is an editorial change to delete 
a note which is no longer needed.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 10 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 license amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes do not alter any plant equipment or 
operating practices in such a manner that the probability of an 
accident is increased. The proposed changes will not alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of 
the plant or significant change in the methods governing normal 
plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Based on the operability of the remaining ESF Room Cooler and 
Safety-Related Chiller Train, the accident analysis assumptions 
continue to be met with enactment of the proposed changes. The 
system design and operation are not affected by the proposed 
changes. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not altered by 
the proposed changes. Finally, the proposed compensatory measures 
for the increase in Completion Time for chiller overhaul maintenance 
work activities will provide further assurance that no significant 
reduction in a safety margin will occur.
    The proposed changes provide reasonable assurance that the ESF 
room Cooler and Safety-Related Chiller system will continue to 
perform its intended safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed changes 
present 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 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, 
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30308-2216.

[[Page 65726]]

    NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 19, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would increase the 
voltage limit for the emergency diesel generator (DG) full load 
rejection test specified by Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC 
Sources--Operating,'' Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10.
    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, 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.
    There are no design changes associated with the proposed change. 
Design, material, and construction standards that were applicable 
prior to this amendment request will continue to be applicable.
    The proposed change will not affect accident initiators or 
precursors nor adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, 
and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant 
is operated and maintained with respect to such initiators or 
precursors. The DGs' safety function is solely mitigative and is not 
needed unless there is a loss of offsite power.
    The proposed change increases the TS SR limit on maximum voltage 
following a load rejection but does not physically alter safety 
related systems nor affect the way in which safety related systems 
perform their functions. The proposed change does not involve a 
physical change to the DGs, nor does it change the safety function 
of the DGs. As such, the proposed change will not alter or prevent 
the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to 
perform their intended functions for mitigating the consequences of 
an accident and meeting applicable acceptance criteria. The 
technical analysis performed to support this proposed amendment has 
demonstrated that the DGs can withstand voltages above the new 
proposed maximum voltage limit without a loss of protection. The 
proposed higher limit will continue to provide assurance that the 
DGs are protected, and the safety function of the DGs will be 
unaffected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase 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.
    With respect to any new or different kind of accident, there are 
no proposed design changes nor or there any changes in the method by 
which any safety related plant SSC performs its specified safety 
function. The proposed change will not affect the normal method of 
plant operation or change any operating parameters. No new accident 
scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures will be introduced as a result of this amendment.
    The proposed amendment will not alter the design or performance 
of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation 
System, Solid State Protection System, Balance of Plant Engineered 
Safety Features Actuation System, Main Steam and Feedwater Isolation 
System, or Load Shedder and Emergency Load Sequencers used in the 
plant protection systems.
    The proposed increase in the TS SR limit does not affect the 
interaction of the DGs with any system whose failure or malfunction 
can initiate an accident. The change does not involve a physical 
modification of the plant. There are no alterations to the 
parameters within which the plant is normally operated. No changes 
are being proposed to the procedures relied upon to mitigate a 
design basis event. The change does not have a detrimental impact on 
the manner in which plant equipment operates or responds to an 
actuation signal.
    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.
    There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to 
assure the accomplishment of protection functions associated with 
reactor operation or the Reactor Coolant System. The will be no 
impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio 
(DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor, nuclear enthalpy rise 
hot channel factor, loss of coolant accident peak cladding 
temperature, peak local power density, or any other limit and 
associated margin of safety. Required shutdown margins in the CORE 
OPERATING LIMITS REPORT will not be changed.
    The proposed change does not eliminate any surveillance or alter 
the Frequency of surveillances required by the TSs. The increase in 
the TS SR voltage limit will not affect the ability of the DGs to 
perform their safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses
    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

[[Page 65727]]

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

    Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 
2, Ogle County, Illinois.
    Date of application for amendment: March 20, 2012, as supplemented 
by letters dated August 14 and 30, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments modify Braidwood and 
Byron Technical Specifications to permanently exclude portions of the 
steam generator (SG) tube below the top of the SG tubesheet from 
periodic SG tube inspections and plugging or repair for Braidwood, Unit 
2, and for Byron, Unit 2. In addition, the amendments revise TS 5.6.9 
to remove reference to the previous temporary alternate repair criteria 
and provide reporting requirements specific to the permanent alternate 
repair criteria.
    Date of issuance: October 4, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days for Braidwood, Unit 2, and implemented for Byron, Unit 
2, prior to entering MODE 4 following. SG inspections required by TS 
5.5.9, beginning with the spring 2012, refueling outage.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-177 and Unit 2-177.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 12, 2012 (77 FR 
35072).
    The August 14 and 30, 2012, supplements contained clarifying 
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding 
of no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated October 4, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment requests: April 30, 2012, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 15, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cyber 
Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule for Milestone 3 and 6 at 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, for 
Milestone 3, PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL) will install a deterministic 
data diode appliance between Layers 3 and 2 instead of between Layers 3 
and 4 with no change to the approved implementation date. For Milestone 
6, PPL will implement the technical controls for critical digital 
assets (CDAs) by the approved implementation date, and will implement 
the operational and management controls for the CDAs in conjunction 
with the full implementation of the CSP.
    Date of issuance: October 17, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance and shall be implemented by December 31, 2012.
    Amendment Nos.: 258 and 239.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22. Amendment 
revised the license and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2012 (77 FR 
48560).
    The letter dated August 15, 2012, provided clarifying information 
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope 
of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: June 29, 2012, as supplemented 
September 12, September 20, and October 10, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),'' such that 
the non-seismically qualified piping of the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) 
purification system may be connected to the RWST's seismic piping by 
manual operation of a RWST seismically qualified boundary valve under 
administrative controls for performance of RWST surveillance 
requirements and filtration. This change will only be applicable 
through the next two fuel cycles.
    Date of issuance: October 12, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance.
    Amendment No.: 192.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises 
the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 24, 2012 (77 FR 
43379).
    The supplemental submittals dated September 12, September 20, and 
October 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 on July 24, 2012 (77 FR 43379).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 12, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
County, California

    Date of application for amendments: September 2, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments would revise a 
number of Technical Specification (TS) requirements to impose similar 
restrictions on the movement of non-irradiated fuel assemblies to those 
currently in place for movement of irradiated fuel assemblies. The 
additional restrictions will limit the movement of all fuel assemblies 
over irradiated fuel assemblies in containment or in the fuel storage 
pool.
    Date of issuance: October 16, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 2-226; Unit 3-219.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendment 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 13, 2011 (76 
FR 77572).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of October 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Louise Lund,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-26355 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P