Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 80972-80980 [2011-33090]
Download as PDF
80972
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
Frequency of Response: Monthly.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 210 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: 0.
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission to OMB for a
Extension of a Currently Approved
Collection; Comment Request
By the National Credit Union
Administration Board on December 20, 2011.
Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Request for comment.
AGENCY:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Jkt 226001
[FR Doc. 2011–33247 Filed 12–22–11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
BILLING CODE 7535–01–P
The NCUA is submitting the
following information collection to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection is published
to obtain comments from the public.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until
January 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments to
the NCUA or OMB contacts listed
below:
NCUA Contact: Tracy Crews, National
Credit Union Administration, 1775
Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–
3428, Fax No. (703) 837–2861, Email:
OCIOMail@ncua.gov.
OMB Contact: ATTN: Desk Officer for
the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA), Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or a
copy of the information collection
request should be directed to Tracy
Crews at the National Credit Union
Administration, 1775 Duke Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314–3428, or at (703)
518–6444.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal
for the following collection of
information:
Title: Large Credit Union Financials
and Board Packages.
OMB Number: 3133–0179.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Description: The region needs the
information to effectively monitor
financial trends and emerging issues of
federally insured credit unions (FICUs)
$1 billion or greater between onsite
visitations. These institutions present
greater risk to the NCUSIF due to their
asset size and complexity.
Respondents: Federally insured credit
unions (FICUs) with $1 billion or greater
in assets.
Estimated No. of Respondents/Record
keepers: 35.
Estimated Burden Hours per
Response: 1⁄2 hour (30 minutes).
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–33029 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
[NRC–2011–0290]
National Science Board; Sunshine Act
Meetings; Notice
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
B. Wilson, National Science Board
Office, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington,
VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292–7000.
The National Science Board’s
Committee on Science and Engineering
Indicators (SEI), pursuant to NSF
regulations (45 CFR part 614), the
National Science Foundation Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the
Government in the Sunshine Act (5
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in
regard to the scheduling of a
teleconference for the transaction of
National Science Board business and
other matters specified, as follows:
DATES: Date & Time: December 28, 2011;
1–2 p.m. EST.
SUBJECT MATTER: (1) Discussion of the
revised Companion Piece to Science and
Engineering Indicators 2012 by the
Committee on Science and Engineering
Indicators (SEI); (2) Consideration for
Recommendation for Board Approval
subject to final edits approved by the
Chairman of the Board and the
Committee Chair; (3) Next Steps.
STATUS: Open.
LOCATION: This meeting will be held by
teleconference at the National Science
Board Office, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, VA 22230. A public listening
room will be available for this
teleconference meeting. All visitors
must contact the Board Office [call (703)
292–7000 or send an email message to
nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov] at least 24
hours prior to the teleconference for the
public room number and to arrange for
a visitor’s badge. All visitors must report
to the NSF visitor desk located in the
lobby at the 9th and N. Stuart Streets
entrance on the day of the
teleconference to receive a visitor’s
badge.
UPDATES & POINT OF CONTACT: Please
refer to the National Science Board Web
site https://www.nsf.gov/nsb for
additional information and schedule
updates (time, place, subject matter or
status of meeting) may be found at
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point
of contact for this meeting is: Matthew
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 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 December 1,
2011 to December 14, 2011. The last
biweekly notice was published on
December 13, 2011 (76 FR 77565).
Addresses: Please include Docket ID
NRC–2011–0290 in the subject line of
your comments. Comments submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the
Federal rulemaking Web site https://
www.regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You may submit comments by any
one of the following methods.
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2011–0290. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher
(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, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492–
3446.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this notice using
the following methods:
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR):
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–
F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through ADAMS in the
NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this page,
the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of
the NRC’s public documents. If you do
not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–(800)
397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by email
to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. From this
page, the public can gain entry into
ADAMS, which provides text and image
files of NRC’s public documents. If you
do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1-(800)
397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by email
to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public
comments and supporting materials
related to this notice can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
on Docket ID: NRC–2011–0290.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
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
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.92, this means
that operation of the facility in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; (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 60day 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.
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. NRC
regulations are accessible electronically
from the NRC Library on the NRC Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a
hearing or petition for leave to intervene
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80973
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
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
80974
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a
digital identification (ID) certificate,
which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally
sign documents and access the ESubmittal 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 NRCissued 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/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 EFiling 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 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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 firstclass 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 https://
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
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
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. Nontimely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding
officer that the petition or request
should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
application for amendment which is
available for public inspection at the
NRC’s PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through
ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://
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 PDR
Reference staff at 1–(800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request:
September 12, 2011, as supplemented
by letter dated October 13, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the River
Bend Station emergency plan to relocate
its alternate Emergency Operations
Facility (EOF) from 23 miles to 28 miles
from the Technical Support Center
(TSC).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident.
The change only impacts the implementation
of the Emergency Plan by relocating the
alternate EOF to another facility. It has no
impact on plant equipment or the operation
of plant equipment and thus has no impact
on the probability or consequences of an
event. The capabilities of the alternate EOF
have not been revised from the current
Emergency Plan. The proposed facility will
have the capabilities to obtain and display
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
plant data and radiological information to
assess plant and radiological release
conditions, perform offsite dose projections,
make public protective action
recommendations and perform offsite
notifications to State and Local agencies.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The change only impacts the
implementation of the Emergency Plan by
relocating the alternate EOF. The change
does not impact any plant equipment or
systems needed to respond to an accident,
nor does it involve any analysis of plant
accidents. The proposed change does not
create a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated because this
change only impacts the location of the
Alternate EOF.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The change to the Emergency Plan does not
reduce the margin of safety currently
provided by the Plan as it maintains the
capabilities of the current alternate EOF.
Offsite dose calculations, offsite notifications
to state and local agencies, and public
protective action recommendations will
continue to be performed by alternate EOF
personnel. Therefore, the proposed changes
do not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A.
Aluise, Associate General Counsel—
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: October
18, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
change the Technical Specification (TS)
Section 3.3.3, Table 3.3–1, to revise the
existing requirement for two channels of
the Containment Water Level
(Containment Sump) function and two
channels of the Containment Sump
Water Level (Recirculation Sump)
function to two Containment Water
Level channels. This is consistent with
the Standard Technical Specification
NUREG 1431.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80975
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 revise the
requirements for water level monitors from 4
to 2. These level indicators are provided for
monitoring the post-accident water level in
the bottom of the containment to aid operator
action to initiate recirculation and to assess
the potential for excessive level. The
presence or absence of these instruments has
no bearing on accident precursor conditions
or events. The proposed requirement will
maintain redundancy and, utilizing the
RWST [Refueling Water Storage Tank] level
indication, diversity to continue to provide
information to the plant operators to monitor
and manage accident conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of previously
evaluated accidents.
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 will revise the
requirements for water level monitors from
four to two. The change reduces the number
of channels required but retains redundancy
and, coupled with the RWST level
indication, diversity of indication. The
Technical Specification does not require the
instruments for normal plant operations and
does not affect how the plant is operated. The
removal of the two indicators does not create
the possibility of any equipment failure or
effect on other equipment.
Therefore, 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 change will revise the
required number of water level monitors. The
revised requirement will remain consistent
with the requirements found in the Standard
Technical Specification for level monitors
provided for monitoring the post-accident
water level. The level monitors no longer
required by the TS will continue to serve as
backup instrumentation for the instruments
on the same power supply as long as they
continue to meet surveillance requirements.
Other instrument channels will remain in
service and provide diverse indication for
operator response and to support existing
accident mitigation strategies. The proposed
change does not involve changes to existing
setpoints for automatic or operator actions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
80976
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
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: Nancy L. Salgado.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 and 3
[IP2 and IP3], Westchester County, New
York
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request:
September 16, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would delete
the references to the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI
and incorporates references to the
ASME Code for Operation and
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants
(ASME OM Code) and indicates that the
allowance for a 25% extension of
surveillance intervals may be applied to
accelerated frequencies utilized in the
inservice testing program.
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 revises [IP2], TS
[Technical Specification] 5.5.6 and [IP3], TS
5.5.7, Inservice Testing Program, for
consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are
classified as American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2 and
Class 3. The proposed change incorporates
revisions to the ASME Code that result in a
net improvement in the measures for testing
pumps and valves.
The proposed change does not impact any
accident initiators or 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.
Therefore, this proposed change does not
represent 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises [P2], TS 5.5.6
and [IP3], TS 5.5.7, Inservice Testing
Program, for consistency with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for
pumps and valves which are classified as
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3.
The proposed change incorporates revisions
to the ASME Code that result in a net
improvement in the measures for testing
pumps and valves.
The proposed change does not involve a
modification to the physical configuration of
the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change will not impose any new or
different requirements or introduce a new
accident initiator, accident precursor, or
malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there
is no change in the types or increases in the
amounts of any effluent that may be released
off-site and there is no increase in individual
or cumulative occupational exposure.
Therefore, this proposed change does not
create the possibility of an accident of a
different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises [IP2], TS
5.5.6 and [IP3], TS 5.5.7, Inservice Testing
Program, for consistency with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for
pumps and valves which are classified as
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3.
The proposed change incorporates revisions
to the ASME Code that result in a net
improvement in the measures for testing
pumps and valves. The safety function of the
affected pumps and valves are maintained.
Therefore, this proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C.
Dennis, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440
Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit 1,
Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request:
November 17, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification 3.3.3.5,
‘‘Remote Shutdown System Table 3.3–
9,’’ by removing the location
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information of transfer switches, control
circuits and instruments.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of NSHC, which is
presented below with NRC edits in
brackets:
1. The proposed change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the
physical function of plant structures,
systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner
in which SSCs perform their design function.
The proposed change neither adversely
affects accident initiators or precursors, nor
alters design assumptions. The proposed
change does not alter or prevent the ability
of operable SSCs to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within assumed acceptance
limits.
The proposed change would remove the
specific location information listed in
Technical Specification 3.3.3.5, Remote
Shutdown Systems; Table 3.3–9 for transfer
switches/control circuits and instruments.
The requirements in this Technical
Specification would not change with the
removal of the location information and the
location information does not meet any of the
criteria in 10 CFR 50.36c(2)(ii) for items that
must be retained in the Technical
Specifications. Removing the location
information will have no adverse effect on
plant operation, the availability or operation
of any accident mitigation equipment, or
plant response to a design basis accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change will not impact the
accident analysis. The change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will
be installed), a significant change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator
actions. The proposed change will not
introduce failure modes that could result in
a new accident. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change[ does] not involve
a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
Margin of safety is associated with
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system pressure boundary, and
containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed
change does not involve a change in the
method of plant operation, and no accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes.
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
Additionally, the proposed changes will
not relax any criteria used to establish safety
limits and will not relax any safety system
settings. The safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not affected by this change. The
proposed change will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the
design basis. The proposed change does not
adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross,
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O.
Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K.
Chernoff.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC,
(NMPNS) Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–
410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,
Unit 1 and 2 (NMP 1 and 2), Oswego
County, New York
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: July 20,
2011, as supplemented on November 3,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the NMP1 Technical Specification (TS)
Section 5.1, ‘‘Site,’’ and associated TS
Figure 5.1–1, ‘‘Site Boundaries, Nine
Mile Point—Unit 1,’’ and the NMP2 TS
Figure 4.1–1, ‘‘Site Area and Land
Portion of Exclusion Area Boundaries,’’
to reflect the transfer of a portion of the
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC
(NMPNS) site real property located
outside of the NMPNS Protected Area
but within the current NMPNS Owner
Controlled Area, as well as specified
easements over the remainder of the
NMPNS site, to Nine Mile Point 3
Nuclear Project, LLC (NMP3), a
subsidiary of UniStar Nuclear Energy,
LLC.
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 amendments are intended
only to reflect the transfer of a portion of the
NMPNS site real property to NMP3, relocate
certain design details from the TS to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
NMP1 and NMP2 safety analysis reports, and
make other changes that are administrative in
nature. No physical or operational changes to
the facility will result from the proposed
amendments, and the exclusion area
boundary and low population zone will not
be altered. The proposed amendments do not
modify the design assumptions for systems or
components used to mitigate the
consequences of accidents, and the initial
conditions and methodologies used in the
NMP1 and NMP2 accident analyses remain
unchanged.
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 amendments do not involve
a physical alteration of the plants (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or changes in methods governing normal
plant operation. The safety functions of
NMP1 and NMP2 structures, systems, or
components are not changed in any manner,
and the reliability of structures, systems, or
components is not reduced. Thus, no new
failure modes or potential accident initiators
are introduced.
3. Does the proposed [change] involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No physical or operational changes to
NMP1 and NMP2 will result from the
proposed amendments, and the exclusion
area boundary and low population zone will
not be altered. The proposed amendments do
not affect any safety limits, setpoints, or
safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey W.
Fleming, Senior Counsel, Constellation
Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100
Constellation Way, Suite 200C,
Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
Docket No. 50–327, Sequoyah Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, Hamilton County,
Tennessee
Date of amendment request:
September 29, 2011 (TS–SQN–2011–
05).
Description of amendment request:
During Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN),
Unit 2, fall 2012 refueling outage (RFO),
the replacement steam generators will
be installed. To support this activity,
heavy load lifts will be conducted. The
proposed amendment would add a onetime license condition to the SQN, Unit
1 operating license for the conduct of
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80977
heavy load lifts for the SQN, Unit 2
steam generator replacement project
(SGRP). The one-time license condition
establishes special provisions and
requirements for the safe operation of
SQN, Unit 1, while large heavy load lifts
are performed on SQN, Unit 2. In
addition, a one-time change to SQN,
Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.7.5,
‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink,’’ is also proposed
to implement additional restrictions
with respect to maximum average
essential raw cooling water (ERCW)
system supply header water temperature
during large heavy load lifts performed
to support the SQN, Unit 2 SGRP during
fall 2012 RFO.
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.
No changes in event classification as
discussed in SQN Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report Chapter 15, ‘‘Accident
Analyses,’’ will occur due to the proposed
one-time change to support the conduct of
large heavy load lifts associated with the
SQN, Unit 2, steam generator replacement
project.
Accidents previously evaluated that are
relevant to this determination are related to
plant external events and load handling. The
probability of an occurrence of a seismic
event is determined by regional geologic
conditions and has not changed. Weather
related events are determined by regional
meteorological conditions and the probability
of occurrence of severe weather events has
not changed.
The consequences of an earthquake have
not changed. A seismic evaluation performed
to support the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator
replacement activities has determined that
the Outside Lift System (OLS) would not
collapse or result in a drop of the load during
a seismic design basis Safe Shutdown
Earthquake event for the lift configurations to
be used during the SQN, Unit 2, steam
generator replacement project. Similar
qualification is demonstrated for the mobile
crane, which will be used for handling
smaller loads during the SQN, Unit 2, steam
generator replacement project.
The consequences of a tornado or high
winds have not changed. A lift will not
commence if analysis of weather data for the
expected duration of the lift indicates the
potential for wind conditions in excess of the
maximum operating wind speed. Rigging
operations will not be performed when wind
speeds exceed the maximum operating wind
speed for the OLS. If wind speeds increase
during a rigging operation such that the wind
speed may exceed the maximum operating
speed, rigging operations will be suspended
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
80978
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
and the unloaded OLS will be secured by
implementing administrative controls
specified by the manufacturer. Further,
should there be an unexpected detrimental
change in weather while the OLS is loaded,
the lift will be completed and the OLS will
be placed in its optimum safe configuration
or the load will be grounded and the crane
will be placed in a safe configuration. Similar
qualification and administrative controls are
also applied to the mobile crane used for
handling smaller loads during the SQN, Unit
2, steam generator replacement project.
An old steam generator (OSG) drop has
been postulated to occur to address the
radiological consequences associated with
the drop. The dose analysis demonstrated
that the OSG drop accident consequences
remain below applicable regulatory limits
and are bounded by similar, previously
evaluated accidents at SQN.
In addition, the proposed change
establishes requirements to ensure that the
ERCW System remains capable of supporting
the continued operation and safe shutdown
of SQN, Unit 1, and remains capable of
maintaining the required cooling water flow
to essential structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) following a potential
large heavy load drop. As such, the ERCW
System will remain capable of performing its
required safety function to support
equipment credited in the mitigation of
consequences of design basis events.
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.
Three postulated scenarios related to heavy
load handling during the SQN, Unit 2, steam
generator replacement activities were
examined for their potential to represent a
new or different kind of accident from those
previously evaluated: 1) a breach of an OSG,
resulting in the release of contained
radioactive material, 2) flooding in the
Auxiliary Building caused by the failure of
piping in the ERCW tunnel, and 3) loss of
ERCW to support safe shutdown of the
operating Unit (SQN, Unit 1) and the
continued supply of cooling water from the
ERCW System to essential SSCs.
Failure of an OSG that results in a breach
of the primary side of the steam generator
could potentially result in a release of a
contained source outside containment. The
consequences of this event, both offsite and
in the control room, were examined and were
found to be within the consequences of the
failure of other contained sources outside
containment at the SQN site.
To preclude flooding of the Auxiliary
Building due to a large heavy load drop, a
temporary wall will be installed in the pipe
tunnel near the Auxiliary Building interface.
Thus, the postulated flooding of the ERCW
tunnel will not result in flooding of the
Auxiliary Building beyond those events
previously evaluated.
The potential for a large heavy load drop
to cause loss of ERCW supply to SQN, Unit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
1, and other essential SSCs is considered an
unlikely accident for the following reasons.
• The lifting equipment was specifically
chosen for the subject heavy lifts,
• Crane operators will be specially trained
in the operation of the lift equipment and in
the SQN site conditions,
• Qualifying analyses and administrative
controls will be used to protect the lifts from
the effects of external events, and
• The areas over which a load drop could
cause loss of ERCW are a small part of the
total travel path of the loads.
In addition, protection against the potential
for loss of ERCW is established by the
proposed License Condition requirements
and proposed Technical Specifications
requirements. These requirements ensure
that that ERCW System remains capable of
supporting the continued operation and safe
shutdown of SQN, Unit 1, and remains
capable of maintaining the required cooling
water flow to essential SSCs following a
potential large heavy load drop.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the SQN, Unit 1,
Operating License and Technical
Specifications supports safe operation and
safe shutdown capabilities of SQN, Unit 1,
during replacement of the SQN, Unit 2, steam
generators. These proposed requirements do
not result in changes in the design basis for
SSCs and do not change the minimum
amount of operating equipment credited in
the safety analyses for accident or transient
mitigation. The proposed change does not
alter the assumptions contained in the safety
analyses. The proposed change does not alter
the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings or limiting conditions
for operation are determined. The proposed
change does not impact the safety analysiscredited redundancy or availability of SSCs
required for accident or transient mitigation,
or the ability of the unit to cope with design
basis events as assumed in safety analyses.
Consequently, the proposed change will not
affect any margins of safety for SSCs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Previously Published Notices of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously
published as separate individual
notices. The notice content was the
same as above. They were published as
individual notices either because time
did not allow the Commission to wait
for this biweekly notice or because the
action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments
issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice
in the Federal Register on the day and
page cited. This notice does not extend
the notice period of the original notice.
Union Electric Company, Docket No.
50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request:
December 10, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated June 16 and October 27,
2011.
Brief description of amendment
request: The proposed amendment
would add a new Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.6 to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.8, ‘‘Emergency
Exhaust System (EES) Actuation
Instrumentation.’’ The new SR would
require the performance of response
time testing on the portion of the EES
required to isolate the normal fuel
building ventilation exhaust flow path
and initiate the fuel building ventilation
isolation signal (FBVIS) mode of
operation. The proposed amendment
also would revise TS Table 3.3.8–1 to
indicate that new SR 3.3.8.6 applies to
automatic actuation Function 2,
‘‘Automatic Actuation Logic and
Actuation Relays (BOP ESFAS),’’ and
Function 3, ‘‘Fuel Building Exhaust
Radiation—Gaseous.’’ In addition, the
specified frequency of new SR 3.3.8.6
would be relocated and controlled in
accordance with the licensee’s
Surveillance Frequency Control
Program in accordance with guidance in
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04–10,
‘‘Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 5b, RiskInformed Method for Control of
Surveillance Frequencies.’’ Finally,
there would be corresponding changes
to the Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR).
Date of publication of individual
notice in Federal Register: November
29, 2011 (76 FR 73733).
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Expiration dates of individual notice:
Comments: December 29, 2011;
Hearings: January 30, 2012.
Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill,
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
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.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, 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 https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle
County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments:
April 4, 2011, as supplemented by letter
dated August 15, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) to define a new
time limit for restoring inoperable
reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage
detection instrumentation to operable
status; establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or
more required monitors are inoperable
and make conforming TS Bases changes,
which reflect the proposed changes; and
more accurately reflect the contents of
the facility design basis related to
operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. These changes are
consistent with the NRC-approved
Revision 3 to Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler TSTF–
514, ‘‘Revise BWR [Boiling-Water
Reactor] Operability Requirements and
Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.’’
Date of issuance: December 7, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 204/191.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
11 and NPF–18: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28473).
The August 15, 2011, supplement
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed and did not change the NRC
staff’s initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 7,
2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit
1 (DBNPS), Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment:
April 29, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: This
amendment revises the DBNPS
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.15,
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80979
‘‘[Reactor Coolant System] RCS Leakage
Detection Instrumentation’’ to define a
new time limit for restoring inoperable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation
to operable status and establish alternate
methods of monitoring RCS leakage
when one or more required monitors are
inoperable.
The amendment also makes TS Bases
changes, which reflect the proposed TS
changes, and more accurately reflect the
contents of the facility design basis
related to operability of the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation.
The amendment is consistent with the
guidance contained in Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved
Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF–513,
Revision 3, ‘‘Revise [Pressurized-Water
Reactor] PWR Operability Requirements
and Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.’’ TSTF–513, Revision
3, was made available by the NRC on
January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189) as part of
the consolidated line item improvement
process.
Date of issuance: December 9, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 284.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–3:
Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40940).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 9,
2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC,
Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego
County, New York
Date of application for amendment:
March 30, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment changes the NMP2
Technical Specification (TS) Section
3.4.7, ‘‘RCS Leakage Detection
Instrumentation,’’ to define a new time
limit for restoring inoperable Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status and
establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when required
monitors are inoperable. These changes
are consistent with TS Task Force
(TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler TSTF–
514, Revision 3, ‘‘Revise BWR
Operability Requirements and Actions
for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.’’
Date of issuance: November 30, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
80980
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance to be implemented within 90
days.
Amendment No.: 139.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–069: The amendment revises
the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37849).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 30,
2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of application for amendments:
February 4, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments make administrative
changes to TSs 5.2.1 and 5.3 that: (1)
Allow certain requirements of onsite
and offsite organizations to be
documented in the Quality Assurance
Topical Report (QATR); and (2) remove
reference to specific education and
experience requirements for operator
license applicants.
Date of issuance: December 1, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 205 and 192.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 22, 2011 (76 FR
16008).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 1,
2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of December 2011.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–33090 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–416; NRC–2010–0082]
Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of
the Application, Notice of Opportunity
for Hearing, Regarding Renewal of
Facility Operating License No. NPF–29
for an Additional 20-Year Period;
Entergy Operations, Inc.; Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station, Unit 1
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering an application for the
renewal of an operating license, which
authorizes Entergy Operations, Inc.
(Entergy), to operate the Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), at 3898
megawatts thermal. The renewed
license would authorize the applicant to
operate GGNS, for an additional 20
years beyond the period specified in the
current license. GGNS is located in
Claiborne County, Mississippi and its
current operating license expires on
November 1, 2024.
Entergy submitted the application
dated October 28, 2011, pursuant to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 54, to renew
operating license NPF–29. A notice of
receipt and availability of the license
renewal application (LRA) was
published in the Federal Register on
November 17, 2011 (76 FRN 71379).
The Commission’s staff has
determined that Entergy has submitted
sufficient information in accordance
with 10 CFR sections 54.19, 54.21,
54.22, 54.23, and 51.53(c), to enable the
staff to undertake a review of the
application, and that the application is
therefore acceptable for docketing. The
current Docket Number, 50–416, for
operating license NPF–29 will be
retained. The determination to accept
the LRA for docketing does not
constitute a determination that a
renewed license should be issued, and
does not preclude the NRC staff from
requesting additional information as the
review proceeds.
Before issuance of the requested
renewed license, the NRC will have
made the findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s rules
and regulations. In accordance with 10
CFR 54.29, the NRC may issue a
renewed license on the basis of its
review if it finds that actions have been
identified and have been or will be
taken with respect to: (1) Managing the
effects of aging during the period of
extended operation on the functionality
of structures and components that have
been identified as requiring aging
management review, and (2) time-
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
limited aging analyses that have been
identified as requiring review, such that
there is reasonable assurance that the
activities authorized by the renewed
license will continue to be conducted in
accordance with the current licensing
basis (CLB) and that any changes made
to the plants CLB will comply with the
Act and the Commission’s regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10
CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an
environmental impact statement that is
a supplement to the Commission’s
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Power Plants,’’ dated May
1996. In considering the LRA, the
Commission must find that the
applicable requirements of Subpart A of
10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied, and
that matters raised under 10 CFR 2.335
have been addressed. Pursuant to 10
CFR 51.26, and as part of the
environmental scoping process, the staff
intends to hold a public scoping
meeting. Detailed information regarding
the environmental scoping meeting will
be the subject of a separate Federal
Register notice.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this Federal Register
notice, any person whose interest may
be affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene with respect to the renewal of
the license. Requests for a hearing or
petitions for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the
Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings and
Issuance of Orders’’ in 10 CFR part 2.
Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, MD 20852 and is
accessible from the NRC’s Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room online in the NRC library
at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to the Internet or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC’s PDR reference staff by telephone
at 1–(800) 397–4209, or (301) 415–4737,
or by email at PDR@nrc.gov. If a request
for a hearing/petition for leave to
intervene is filed within the 60-day
period, 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
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80972-80980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33090]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0290]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating 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
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 December 1, 2011 to December 14, 2011. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 13, 2011 (76 FR 77565).
Addresses: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0290 in the subject
line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking
Web site https://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
[[Page 80973]]
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2011-0290. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher (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, or
by fax to RADB at (301) 492-3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice
using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Room
O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of the NRC's
public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's
PDR reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. From this page, the public can gain entry into
ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR
reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting
materials related to this notice can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2011-0290.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.92, 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; (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.
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. NRC
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the
NRC Web site at https://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
[[Page 80974]]
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct
of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
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 https://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 https://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
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 https://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 public Web site at https://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 Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://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
https://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
[[Page 80975]]
copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://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 PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209,
(301) 415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 12, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated October 13, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
River Bend Station emergency plan to relocate its alternate Emergency
Operations Facility (EOF) from 23 miles to 28 miles from the Technical
Support Center (TSC).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident. The change only impacts the
implementation of the Emergency Plan by relocating the alternate EOF
to another facility. It has no impact on plant equipment or the
operation of plant equipment and thus has no impact on the
probability or consequences of an event. The capabilities of the
alternate EOF have not been revised from the current Emergency Plan.
The proposed facility will have the capabilities to obtain and
display plant data and radiological information to assess plant and
radiological release conditions, perform offsite dose projections,
make public protective action recommendations and perform offsite
notifications to State and Local agencies.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change only impacts the implementation of the Emergency Plan
by relocating the alternate EOF. The change does not impact any
plant equipment or systems needed to respond to an accident, nor
does it involve any analysis of plant accidents. The proposed change
does not create a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated because this change only impacts the location
of the Alternate EOF.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The change to the Emergency Plan does not reduce the margin of
safety currently provided by the Plan as it maintains the
capabilities of the current alternate EOF. Offsite dose
calculations, offsite notifications to state and local agencies, and
public protective action recommendations will continue to be
performed by alternate EOF personnel. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: October 18, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change the Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.3.3, Table 3.3-1, to
revise the existing requirement for two channels of the Containment
Water Level (Containment Sump) function and two channels of the
Containment Sump Water Level (Recirculation Sump) function to two
Containment Water Level channels. This is consistent with the Standard
Technical Specification NUREG 1431.
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 revise the requirements for water level
monitors from 4 to 2. These level indicators are provided for
monitoring the post-accident water level in the bottom of the
containment to aid operator action to initiate recirculation and to
assess the potential for excessive level. The presence or absence of
these instruments has no bearing on accident precursor conditions or
events. The proposed requirement will maintain redundancy and,
utilizing the RWST [Refueling Water Storage Tank] level indication,
diversity to continue to provide information to the plant operators
to monitor and manage accident conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of previously evaluated
accidents.
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 will revise the requirements for water level
monitors from four to two. The change reduces the number of channels
required but retains redundancy and, coupled with the RWST level
indication, diversity of indication. The Technical Specification
does not require the instruments for normal plant operations and
does not affect how the plant is operated. The removal of the two
indicators does not create the possibility of any equipment failure
or effect on other equipment.
Therefore, 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 change will revise the required number of water
level monitors. The revised requirement will remain consistent with
the requirements found in the Standard Technical Specification for
level monitors provided for monitoring the post-accident water
level. The level monitors no longer required by the TS will continue
to serve as backup instrumentation for the instruments on the same
power supply as long as they continue to meet surveillance
requirements. Other instrument channels will remain in service and
provide diverse indication for operator response and to support
existing accident mitigation strategies. The proposed change does
not involve changes to existing setpoints for automatic or operator
actions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 80976]]
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: Nancy L. Salgado.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 and 3 [IP2 and IP3], Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: September 16, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete the references to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI and incorporates
references to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear
Power Plants (ASME OM Code) and indicates that the allowance for a 25%
extension of surveillance intervals may be applied to accelerated
frequencies utilized in the inservice testing program.
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 revises [IP2], TS [Technical Specification]
5.5.6 and [IP3], TS 5.5.7, Inservice Testing Program, for
consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps
and valves which are classified as American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. The proposed
change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that result in a net
improvement in the measures for testing pumps and valves.
The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators or
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.
Therefore, this proposed change does not represent 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 revises [P2], TS 5.5.6 and [IP3], TS 5.5.7,
Inservice Testing Program, for consistency with the requirements of
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are classified as
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class
2 and Class 3. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the
ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for
testing pumps and valves.
The proposed change does not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different
requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident
precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no
change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that
may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or
cumulative occupational exposure.
Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility
of an accident of a different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises [IP2], TS 5.5.6 and [IP3], TS 5.5.7,
Inservice Testing Program, for consistency with the requirements of
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are classified as
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class
2 and Class 3. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the
ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for
testing pumps and valves. The safety function of the affected pumps
and valves are maintained.
Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: November 17, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification 3.3.3.5, ``Remote Shutdown System Table 3.3-
9,'' by removing the location information of transfer switches, control
circuits and instruments.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, which is presented below
with NRC edits in brackets:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the physical function of
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed change
neither adversely affects accident initiators or precursors, nor
alters design assumptions. The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within
assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed change would remove the specific location
information listed in Technical Specification 3.3.3.5, Remote
Shutdown Systems; Table 3.3-9 for transfer switches/control circuits
and instruments. The requirements in this Technical Specification
would not change with the removal of the location information and
the location information does not meet any of the criteria in 10 CFR
50.36c(2)(ii) for items that must be retained in the Technical
Specifications. Removing the location information will have no
adverse effect on plant operation, the availability or operation of
any accident mitigation equipment, or plant response to a design
basis accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change will not impact the accident analysis. The
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a significant
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions.
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could
result in a new accident. The change does not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change[ does] not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change does not
involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes.
[[Page 80977]]
Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria
used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, (NMPNS) Docket Nos. 50-220 and
50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 and 2 (NMP 1 and 2),
Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: July 20, 2011, as supplemented on
November 3, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the NMP1 Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.1, ``Site,'' and
associated TS Figure 5.1-1, ``Site Boundaries, Nine Mile Point--Unit
1,'' and the NMP2 TS Figure 4.1-1, ``Site Area and Land Portion of
Exclusion Area Boundaries,'' to reflect the transfer of a portion of
the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS) site real property
located outside of the NMPNS Protected Area but within the current
NMPNS Owner Controlled Area, as well as specified easements over the
remainder of the NMPNS site, to Nine Mile Point 3 Nuclear Project, LLC
(NMP3), a subsidiary of UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC.
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 amendments are intended only to reflect the
transfer of a portion of the NMPNS site real property to NMP3,
relocate certain design details from the TS to the NMP1 and NMP2
safety analysis reports, and make other changes that are
administrative in nature. No physical or operational changes to the
facility will result from the proposed amendments, and the exclusion
area boundary and low population zone will not be altered. The
proposed amendments do not modify the design assumptions for systems
or components used to mitigate the consequences of accidents, and
the initial conditions and methodologies used in the NMP1 and NMP2
accident analyses remain unchanged.
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 amendments do not involve a physical alteration of
the plants (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The safety
functions of NMP1 and NMP2 structures, systems, or components are
not changed in any manner, and the reliability of structures,
systems, or components is not reduced. Thus, no new failure modes or
potential accident initiators are introduced.
3. Does the proposed [change] involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No physical or operational changes to NMP1 and NMP2 will result
from the proposed amendments, and the exclusion area boundary and
low population zone will not be altered. The proposed amendments do
not affect any safety limits, setpoints, or safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel,
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: September 29, 2011 (TS-SQN-2011-05).
Description of amendment request: During Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
(SQN), Unit 2, fall 2012 refueling outage (RFO), the replacement steam
generators will be installed. To support this activity, heavy load
lifts will be conducted. The proposed amendment would add a one-time
license condition to the SQN, Unit 1 operating license for the conduct
of heavy load lifts for the SQN, Unit 2 steam generator replacement
project (SGRP). The one-time license condition establishes special
provisions and requirements for the safe operation of SQN, Unit 1,
while large heavy load lifts are performed on SQN, Unit 2. In addition,
a one-time change to SQN, Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.7.5,
``Ultimate Heat Sink,'' is also proposed to implement additional
restrictions with respect to maximum average essential raw cooling
water (ERCW) system supply header water temperature during large heavy
load lifts performed to support the SQN, Unit 2 SGRP during fall 2012
RFO.
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.
No changes in event classification as discussed in SQN Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15, ``Accident Analyses,'' will
occur due to the proposed one-time change to support the conduct of
large heavy load lifts associated with the SQN, Unit 2, steam
generator replacement project.
Accidents previously evaluated that are relevant to this
determination are related to plant external events and load
handling. The probability of an occurrence of a seismic event is
determined by regional geologic conditions and has not changed.
Weather related events are determined by regional meteorological
conditions and the probability of occurrence of severe weather
events has not changed.
The consequences of an earthquake have not changed. A seismic
evaluation performed to support the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator
replacement activities has determined that the Outside Lift System
(OLS) would not collapse or result in a drop of the load during a
seismic design basis Safe Shutdown Earthquake event for the lift
configurations to be used during the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator
replacement project. Similar qualification is demonstrated for the
mobile crane, which will be used for handling smaller loads during
the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator replacement project.
The consequences of a tornado or high winds have not changed. A
lift will not commence if analysis of weather data for the expected
duration of the lift indicates the potential for wind conditions in
excess of the maximum operating wind speed. Rigging operations will
not be performed when wind speeds exceed the maximum operating wind
speed for the OLS. If wind speeds increase during a rigging
operation such that the wind speed may exceed the maximum operating
speed, rigging operations will be suspended
[[Page 80978]]
and the unloaded OLS will be secured by implementing administrative
controls specified by the manufacturer. Further, should there be an
unexpected detrimental change in weather while the OLS is loaded,
the lift will be completed and the OLS will be placed in its optimum
safe configuration or the load will be grounded and the crane will
be placed in a safe configuration. Similar qualification and
administrative controls are also applied to the mobile crane used
for handling smaller loads during the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator
replacement project.
An old steam generator (OSG) drop has been postulated to occur
to address the radiological consequences associated with the drop.
The dose analysis demonstrated that the OSG drop accident
consequences remain below applicable regulatory limits and are
bounded by similar, previously evaluated accidents at SQN.
In addition, the proposed change establishes requirements to
ensure that the ERCW System remains capable of supporting the
continued operation and safe shutdown of SQN, Unit 1, and remains
capable of maintaining the required cooling water flow to essential
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) following a potential
large heavy load drop. As such, the ERCW System will remain capable
of performing its required safety function to support equipment
credited in the mitigation of consequences of design basis events.
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.
Three postulated scenarios related to heavy load handling during
the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator replacement activities were
examined for their potential to represent a new or different kind of
accident from those previously evaluated: 1) a breach of an OSG,
resulting in the release of contained radioactive material, 2)
flooding in the Auxiliary Building caused by the failure of piping
in the ERCW tunnel, and 3) loss of ERCW to support safe shutdown of
the operating Unit (SQN, Unit 1) and the continued supply of cooling
water from the ERCW System to essential SSCs.
Failure of an OSG that results in a breach of the primary side
of the steam generator could potentially result in a release of a
contained source outside containment. The consequences of this
event, both offsite and in the control room, were examined and were
found to be within the consequences of the failure of other
contained sources outside containment at the SQN site.
To preclude flooding of the Auxiliary Building due to a large
heavy load drop, a temporary wall will be installed in the pipe
tunnel near the Auxiliary Building interface. Thus, the postulated
flooding of the ERCW tunnel will not result in flooding of the
Auxiliary Building beyond those events previously evaluated.
The potential for a large heavy load drop to cause loss of ERCW
supply to SQN, Unit 1, and other essential SSCs is considered an
unlikely accident for the following reasons.
The lifting equipment was specifically chosen for the
subject heavy lifts,
Crane operators will be specially trained in the
operation of the lift equipment and in the SQN site conditions,
Qualifying analyses and administrative controls will be
used to protect the lifts from the effects of external events, and
The areas over which a load drop could cause loss of
ERCW are a small part of the total travel path of the loads.
In addition, protection against the potential for loss of ERCW
is established by the proposed License Condition requirements and
proposed Technical Specifications requirements. These requirements
ensure that that ERCW System remains capable of supporting the
continued operation and safe shutdown of SQN, Unit 1, and remains
capable of maintaining the required cooling water flow to essential
SSCs following a potential large heavy load drop.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the SQN, Unit 1, Operating License and
Technical Specifications supports safe operation and safe shutdown
capabilities of SQN, Unit 1, during replacement of the SQN, Unit 2,
steam generators. These proposed requirements do not result in
changes in the design basis for SSCs and do not change the minimum
amount of operating equipment credited in the safety analyses for
accident or transient mitigation. The proposed change does not alter
the assumptions contained in the safety analyses. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The proposed change does not impact the safety analysis-
credited redundancy or availability of SSCs required for accident or
transient mitigation, or the ability of the unit to cope with design
basis events as assumed in safety analyses. Consequently, the
proposed change will not affect any margins of safety for SSCs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: December 10, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated June 16 and October 27, 2011.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would add a new Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.6 to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.8, ``Emergency Exhaust System (EES) Actuation
Instrumentation.'' The new SR would require the performance of response
time testing on the portion of the EES required to isolate the normal
fuel building ventilation exhaust flow path and initiate the fuel
building ventilation isolation signal (FBVIS) mode of operation. The
proposed amendment also would revise TS Table 3.3.8-1 to indicate that
new SR 3.3.8.6 applies to automatic actuation Function 2, ``Automatic
Actuation Logic and Actuation Relays (BOP ESFAS),'' and Function 3,
``Fuel Building Exhaust Radiation--Gaseous.'' In addition, the
specified frequency of new SR 3.3.8.6 would be relocated and controlled
in accordance with the licensee's Surveillance Frequency Control
Program in accordance with guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-
Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies.'' Finally,
there would be corresponding changes to the Final Safety Analysis
Report (FSAR).
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
November 29, 2011 (76 FR 73733).
[[Page 80979]]
Expiration dates of individual notice: Comments: December 29, 2011;
Hearings: January 30, 2012.
Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, 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
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.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, 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 https://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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: April 4, 2011, as supplemented
by letter dated August 15, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status; establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable and make conforming TS Bases changes, which reflect the
proposed changes; and more accurately reflect the contents of the
facility design basis related to operability of the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation. These changes are consistent with the NRC-
approved Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-514, ``Revise BWR
[Boiling-Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS
Leakage Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: December 7, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 204/191.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR
28473).
The August 15, 2011, supplement provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed and did not change the NRC staff's
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 7, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS), Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: April 29, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the DBNPS
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``[Reactor Coolant System] RCS
Leakage Detection Instrumentation'' to define a new time limit for
restoring inoperable RCS leakage detection instrumentation to operable
status and establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS leakage when
one or more required monitors are inoperable.
The amendment also makes TS Bases changes, which reflect the
proposed TS changes, and more accurately reflect the contents of the
facility design basis related to operability of the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation.
The amendment is consistent with the guidance contained in Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-513, Revision 3, ``Revise
[Pressurized-Water Reactor] PWR Operability Requirements and Actions
for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.'' TSTF-513, Revision 3, was made
available by the NRC on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189) as part of the
consolidated line item improvement process.
Date of issuance: December 9, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 284.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 12, 2011 (76 FR
40940).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 9, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: March 30, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the NMP2
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.7, ``RCS Leakage Detection
Instrumentation,'' to define a new time limit for restoring inoperable
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection instrumentation to
operable status and establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS
leakage when required monitors are inoperable. These changes are
consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification
Change Traveler TSTF-514, Revision 3, ``Revise BWR Operability
Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: November 30, 2011.
[[Page 80980]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
90 days.
Amendment No.: 139.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-069: The amendment
revises the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (76 FR
37849).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: February 4, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments make administrative
changes to TSs 5.2.1 and 5.3 that: (1) Allow certain requirements of
onsite and offsite organizations to be documented in the Quality
Assurance Topical Report (QATR); and (2) remove reference to specific
education and experience requirements for operator license applicants.
Date of issuance: December 1, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 205 and 192.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 22, 2011 (76 FR
16008).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of December 2011.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-33090 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P