thefederalregister.com

Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0226]

Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsBackground

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 September 6, 2012, to September 19, 2012. The last biweekly notice was published on September 14, 2012 (77 FR 56877).

ADDRESSES: *Federal rulemaking Web site:Go tohttp://www.regulations.govand search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0226. 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 theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection of this document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0226 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 tohttp://www.regulations.govand search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0226.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library athttp://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 topdr.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-2012-0226 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 athttp://www.regulations.govas 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 theCode 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 theFederal Registera 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 athttp://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 includesufficient 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 athearing.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 athttp://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 athttp://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 athttp://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 athttp://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 NRCs' Web site athttp://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html,by email atMSHD.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 athttp://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/,unless excluded pursuantto 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 athttp://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 topdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina

Date of amendment request:November 8, 2010, with a supplement dated June 28, 2012.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendments would approve revisions to the updated final safety analysis report to incorporate the licensee's reactor vessel internals inspection plan.

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's analysis 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 license amendment request provides the report which describes the reactor vessel internals inspection plan. The report also provides a description of the inspection plan as it relates to the management of aging effects consistent with previous commitments. The inspection plan is based on technical report MRP-227, Revision 0, “Pressurized Water Reactors Internals Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines” and the additional criteria stated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation of this technical report. The inspection plan contains a discussion of operational experience, time-limited aging analyses, and relevant existing programs.

The licensee's Reactor Vessel Internals Aging Management Program includes the inspection plan and demonstrates that the program adequately manages the effects of aging for reactor vessel internal components and establishes the basis for providing reasonable assurance that the reactor vessel internal components will remain functional through the license renewal period of extended operation.

This license amendment request provides an inspection plan based on industry work and experiences as agreed to in Duke Energy's license renewal commitments for reactor vessel internals inspection. It is not an accident initiator.

Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.

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 reactor vessel internals inspection plan does not change the methods governing normal plant operation, nor are the methods utilized to respond to plant transients altered. The revised inspection plan is not an accident initiator an event initiator. No new initiating events or transients result from the use of the reactor vessel internals inspection plan.

Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not created.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:No.

The proposed safety limits have been preserved. The license amendment request is for review and approval for the reactor vessel internals inspection plan that Duke Energy committed to provide prior to commencing inspections.

Therefore, this request does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has determined that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street—EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202-1802.

NRC Branch Chief:Robert J. Pascarelli.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina

Date of amendment request:June 27, 2012.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications to allow each Keowee Hydro Unit to be inoperable for an extended period of time in order to perform major refurbishment work.

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.

This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day Completion Time for Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that one Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is inoperable for > 72 hours, a Lee Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing both standby buses, two offsite power sources will be maintained available, and maintenance on electrical distribution systems will not be performed unless necessary. In addition, risk significant systems (Emergency Feedwater System [EFW] and Standby Shutdown Facility [SSF]) will be verified operable prior to entry into the 75-day Completion Time. The temporary 75-day Completion Time will decrease the likelihood of an unplanned forced shutdown of all three Oconee Units and the potential safety consequences and operational risks associated with that action. Avoiding this risk offsets the risks associated with having a design basis event during the temporary 75-day completion time for having one KHU inoperable.

The temporary addition of the 75-day Completion Time does not involve:

(1) A physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new or different manner; or (4) a change to any set points for parameters which initiate protective or mitigation action.

There is no adverse impact on containment integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main steam relief valve set points, or radwaste systems. No new radiological release pathways are created.

The consequences of an event occurring during the temporary 75-day Completion Time are the same as those that would occur during the existing Completion Time. Duke Energy reviewed the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights concerning the configuration of ONS with one KHU. The results of the risk analysis show a risk improvement if no maintenance is performed on the SSF, EFW System, and AC Power System. The results of the risk analysis show a small risk increase using the average nominal maintenance unavailability values for the SSF, EFW System, and AC Power System. By limiting maintenance, the risk results are expected to be between these two extremes (i.e.,small risk impact).

Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.C. During the time period that one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the emergency power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory measures previously specified will be in place to minimize electrical power system vulnerabilities.

The temporary 75-day Completion Time does not involve a physical effect on the Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk of an Oconee Unit trip or reactivity excursion. No new failure modes or credible accident scenarios are postulated from this activity.

Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not created.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:No.

This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.C. During the time period that one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the emergency power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory measures previously specified will be in place to minimize electrical power system vulnerabilities.

The proposed TS change does not involve: (1) A physical alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new or different manner; (4) a change to any set points for parameters which initiate protective or mitigation action; or (5) any impact on the fission product barriers or safety limits.

Therefore, this request 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:Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street—EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202-1802.

NRC Branch Chief:Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont

Date of amendment request:April 17, 2012.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.A.5 and TS 4.5.A.5 to change the normal position of the recirculation pump discharge bypass valves from “open” to “closed,” and therefore, the safety function to close in support of accident mitigation would be eliminated. The TSs would be revised to require the valves to remain closed; their position would be verified once per operating cycle.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

The proposed amendment does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The recirculation system discharge bypass valve normal position has been changed from “open” to “closed.” The safety function of the discharge bypass valves is to be closed to support accident mitigation. Placing the discharge bypass valves in the normally closed position is consistent with station safety analysis and therefore does not have a significant impact on the probability or consequence of an accident.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

The proposed change does not involve any new modes of operation. The recirculation system discharge bypass valve normal position has been changed from “open” to “closed.” The valves previously had a safety function to close and are designed to meet all code requirements in the closed position. No new accident precursors are introduced. Recirculation pump operating procedures have been revised consistent with vendor guidance. No new or different types of equipment will be installed. The methods governing plant operation remain bounded by current safety analysis assumptions.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:No.

The recirculation system discharge bypass valve normal position has been changed from “open” to “closed.” With the valves normally in the closed position safety margins are maintained. The station safety analysis results are unchanged and margin to regulatory limits is not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment will 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:Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.

NRC Branch Chief:George Wilson.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and50-278, 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 modify the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.8. This change is based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) standard TS change TSTF-372, Revision 4. A notice of availability for this TS improvement using the consolidated line item improvement process was published by the NRC staff in theFederal Registeron May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252).

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 allows a delay time before declaring supported Technical Specification (TS) systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on the delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported system inoperable and taking its Conditions and Required Actions are no different than the consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and Required Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.

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 allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change restores an allowance in the pre-Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) conversion TS that was unintentionally eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does the post-ISTS conversion TS.

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. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.

NRC Branch Chief:Meena K. Khanna.

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

Date of amendment request:August 16, 2012.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendments would modify Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.5, “Control Room Emergency Ventilation System,” to correct a clerical error identified in the issued TS involving TS 3.7.5 Action “c” for Modes 5 and 6 that omitted an applicable footnote.

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 amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. The proposed TS change will allow core alterations, fuel movement, and positive reactivity changes in Modes 5 and 6 subject to the conditions specified in the++footnote that actions have been taken to permit indefinite system/component operation and the system is in recirculation mode. The proposed change corrects a clerical error by annotating TS 3.7.5 Action “c” with a modified footnote consistent with the stated intent of the original license submittals. The proposed amendments do not cause any physical change to the existing spent fuel storage configuration or fuel makeup. The proposed amendments do not affect any precursors to any accident previously evaluated or do not affect any known mitigation equipment or strategies.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. The proposed TS change will allow core alterations, fuel movement, and positive reactivity changes in Modes 5 and 6 subject to the conditions specified in the footnote that actions have been taken to permit indefinite system/component operation and the system is in recirculation mode. The proposed change corrects a clerical error by annotating TS 3.7.5 Action “c” with a modified footnote consistent with the stated intent of the original license submittals.

Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:No.

The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. Therefore, the proposed amendments have no impact to the existing margin of safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4).

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 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:M.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 (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa

Date of amendment request:August 5, 2011.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment would transition the DAEC fire protection program to a new risk-informed, performance-based alternative per 10 CFR 50.48(c) which incorporates by reference the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805 (NFPA 805), “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants—2001.”

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 orconsequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBAs) at DAEC. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility and does not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown (SSD) condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.

The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have been performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-based (RI-PB) requirements per NFPA 805 have been met.

NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative to 10 CFR 50.48(b), satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design Criterion (GDC) 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, and meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and the goals, performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 of the standard. The small increase in the net core damage frequency associated with this LAR submittal is consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c) allows self approval of fire protection program changes post-transition. If there are any increases post-transition in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk, the increase will be small and consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.

Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not significantly increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of performing the assumed function. Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased with the implementation of this amendment.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously analyzed accident with offsite dose was included in the evaluation of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does not alter the requirements or function for systems required during accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205 will not result in new or different accidents.

The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions.

The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004).

The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and the impacts of fire on the plant that have already been evaluated. Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a new accident.

Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not created with the implementation of this amendment.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

Response:No.

Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design function.

The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based methods do not result in 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:Mr. Mitchell S. Ross, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Acting Branch Chief:Istvan Frankl.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Houston County, Alabama

Date of amendment request:January 18, 2012.

Description of amendment request:On June 13, 2003, the NRC issued Amendment No. 151 for FNP Unit 2 which added Note 3 to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 and created new SR 3.4.11.4. Note 3 to SR 3.4.11.1 eliminated the requirement to cycle the Unit 2 Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV) 02B31 MOV8000B during the remainder of operating Cycle 16. This amendment also added SR 3.4.11.4 as a compensatory action for the block valve while SR 3.4.11.1 was suspended. This license amendment request proposes to delete Note 3 from SR 3.4.11.1 and delete SR 3.4.11.4 entirely from the FNP Unit 2 TS. This change is administrative in nature, because Cycle 16 for FNP Unit 2 has been completed; FNP Unit 2 is currently operating in Cycle 22. Therefore, SR 3.4.11.1 Note 3 and SR 3.4.11.4 are no longer applicable.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

The proposed change will remove Note 3 from Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 and delete SR 3.4.11.4 from the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS). SR 3.4.11.1 Note 3 wasincorporated into the FNP Unit 2 TS as a result of a license amendment request granted to SNC on June 3, 2003, which allowed SNC to suspend cycling the Unit 2 Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV) Q2B31 MOV8000B during the remainder of operating cycle 16. Additionally, TS SR 3.4.11.4 was added to provide a compensatory action for the block valve while SR 3.4.11.1 was suspended.

SR 3.4.11.1 Note 3 and SR 3.4.11.1 were applicable for the remainder of operating Cycle 16 which has been completed; FNP Unit 2 is currently operating in Cycle 22. Note 3 to SR 3.4.11.1 and SR 3.4.11.4 are no longer applicable; therefore, this proposed change is administrative in nature.

This proposed administrative license amendment does not impact any accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. The proposed change does not involve the addition or removal of any equipment or any design changes to the facility. The proposed change does not affect any plant operations, design function, or analysis that verifies the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform a design function. The proposed change does not change any of the accidents previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed change does not affect SSCs, operating procedures, and administrative controls that have the function of preventing or mitigating any of these accidents.

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 proposed administrative license amendment does not affect actual plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed change will not change the design function or operation of any SSCs nor result in any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. The proposed amendment does not impact any accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

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:M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35201.

NRC Branch Chief:Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

Date of amendment request:August 15, 2012.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendments would amend the Technical Specifications (TS) associated with the Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System and the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP).

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:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) has evaluated the proposed changes to the FNP TS using the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. An analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is 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 involves changes to the TS requirements to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of the reactor vessel. The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during operation at low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment proposes to adopt the NRC approved and TSTF 213-A and TSTF-419-A. Adoption of these TSTFs will relocate the LTOP applicability temperature from the TS to the PTLR and will eliminate redundant references in Sections 1.1 and 5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed change includes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements that are consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable safety analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved methods, and NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for Westinghouse Plants.

The proposed change to the TS does not affect the initiators of any analyzed accident. In addition, operation in accordance with the proposed TS change ensures that the previously evaluated accidents will continue to be mitigated as analyzed. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety.

Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response:No.

The proposed amendment involves changes to the TS requirements to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of the reactor vessel. The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during operation at low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment proposes to adopt the NRC approved TSTF-233-A and TSTF-419-A Adoption of these TSTFs will relocate the L TOP applicability temperature from the TS to the PTLR and will eliminate redundant references in Sections 1.1 and 5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed change includes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements that are consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable safety analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved methods and NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for Westinghouse Plants. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally the proposed change does not involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses. The pressure and temperature limit curves will continue to preserve the integrity of the reactor vessel. The LTOP System will continue to ensure that the appropriate fracture toughness margins are maintained to protect against reactor vessel failure during low temperature operation. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety.

Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response:No.

The proposed amendment involves changes to the TS requirements to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of reactor vessel. The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during operation at low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment proposes to adopt the NRC approved TSTF-233-A and TSTF-419-A. Adoption of these TSTFs will relocate the LTOP applicability temperature from the TS to the PTLR and will eliminate redundant references in Sections 1.1 and 5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed changeincludes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements that are consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable safety analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved methods and NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for Westinghouse Plants.

The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident analysis. The pressure-temperature limit curves and LTOP System applicability temperature have been determined in accordance with NRC approved methodologies. The proposed changes to the LTOP System TS requirements remain consistent with the applicable LTOP System design, and preserve the applicable safety analysis assumptions. Additionally, no changes are made to the LTOP System function as assumed in the applicable safety analysis.

Therefore, it is concluded that proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Based upon the above analysis, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), “Issuance of Amendment,” 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:M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35201.

NRC Branch Chief:Robert J. Pascarelli.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

Date of amendment request:August 1, 2012.

Description of amendment request:The proposed license amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3-10, “Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,” with respect to the required actions and allowed outage times for inoperable instrumentation for Neutron Flux (Extended Range) and Neutron Flux—Startup Rate (Extended Range) (Instrument Nos. 19 and 23). The required actions will be revised to enhance plant reliability by reducing exposure to unnecessary shutdowns and increase operational flexibility by allowing more time to implement required repairs for inoperable instrumentation. The proposed changes are consistent with requirements generically approved as part of NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, Revision 4 (TS 3.3.3, “Post Accident Monitoring (PAM) Instrumentation”).

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 revise the actions and allowed outage times of the neutron flux (extended range) and neutron flux—startup rate (extended range) accident monitoring instrumentation. The instrumentation is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased by these proposed changes. The Technical Specifications continue to require the instrumentation to be operable. Therefore, the neutron flux (extended range) and neutron flux—startup rate (extended range) instrumentation will continue to provide sufficient information on selected plant parameters to monitor and assess these variables following an accident. The consequences of an accident during the extended allowed outage times are the same as the consequences during the current allowed outage time. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by these proposed changes.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of ac