Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 9998-10003 [2012-3822]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9998-10003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3822]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0038]


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 January 26, 2012 to February 8, 2012. The 
last biweekly notice was published on February 7, 2012 (77 FR 6144).

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly-available, by 
searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-0038. 
You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0038. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0038 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and is publicly-available, by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket NRC-2012-0038.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC 
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0038 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at  https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions 
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should 
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such 
information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, 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

[[Page 9999]]

Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, then 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. The 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 intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
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

[[Page 10000]]

guidance available on the NRC's 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's Office of the General 
Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary 
that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need 
not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, 
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) 
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing 
request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access 
to the document via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site 
at 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 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's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-
4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 12, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
extend the Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) motor flywheel examination 
frequency from the currently approved 10-year examination frequency to 
an interval not to exceed 20 years. The changes are consistent with the 
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-421-A, ``Revision to RCP Flywheel 
Inspection Program (WCAP-15666).'' The availability of this TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on October 22, 2003 
(68 FR 60422), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement 
Process (CLlIP).
    The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety 
evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the 
Federal Register on June 24, 2003 (68 FR 37590). The licensee affirmed 
the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application 
dated May 21, 2004.
    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:

Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change to the RCP flywheel examination frequency 
does not change the response of the plant to any accidents. The RCP 
will remain highly reliable and the proposed change will not result 
in a significant increase in the risk of plant operation. Given the 
extremely low failure probabilities for the RCP motor flywheel 
during normal and accident conditions, the extremely low probability 
of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with loss of offsite power 
(LOOP), and assuming a conditional core damage probability (CCDP) of 
1.0 (complete failure of safety systems), the core damage frequency 
(CDF) and change in risk would still not exceed the NRC's acceptance 
guidelines contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 (<1.0E-6 per 
year). Moreover, considering the uncertainties involved in this 
evaluation, the risk associated with the postulated failure of an 
RCP motor flywheel is significantly low. Even if all four RCP motor 
flywheels are considered in the bounding plant configuration case, 
the risk is still acceptably low.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors, nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility, or the manner in which 
the plant is operated and maintained; alter or prevent the ability 
of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their 
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating 
event within the assumed acceptance limits; or affect the source 
term, containment

[[Page 10001]]

isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed change does not increase the type or amount of 
radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly 
increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation 
exposure. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions and resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change in flywheel inspection frequency does not 
involve any change in the design or operation of the RCP. Nor does 
the change to examination frequency affect any existing accident 
scenarios, or create any new or different accident scenarios. 
Further, the change does not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or alter the methods governing normal plant operation. In 
addition, the change does not impose any new or different 
requirements or eliminate any existing requirements, and does not 
alter any assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed 
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not impacted by this change. The proposed change will not result 
in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis. 
The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the 
acceptance criteria contained in RG 1.174. There are no significant 
mechanisms for inservice degradation of the RCP flywheel.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and 
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, 
Alabama 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia and 50-338 
and 50-339, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Mineral, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: October 6, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: To change the Emergency Action 
Levels (EALs) for North Anna Power Station (NAPS) and Surry Power 
Station (SPS). Several changes are proposed to incorporate lessons 
learned from the safety related breaker fire that occurred at NAPS on 
April 22, 2009 (Ref. NRC Event Notification Report 45013). The proposed 
changes are briefly summarized as follows: (1) Revise the definition of 
``Affecting Safe Shutdown'' in the EAL Technical Basis Documents to 
specifically describe how this applies to NAPS and SPS; (2) revise 
applicable Hazards EALs to incorporate the intent of the revised 
definition for ``Affecting Safe Shutdown''; in addition, the main dam 
is added to the Initiating Condition (IC) for HA1 for NAPS and the low 
level intake structure is added to the IC for HA1 for SPS; (3) changing 
the IC for HA2 and HA3 to replace ``a safe shutdown area'' with ``any 
Table H-1 Area''; and (4) revise applicable System Malfunctions EAL to 
include a 15-minute threshold for RCS leaks.
    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.
    These changes affect the North Anna and Surry Power Station 
Emergency Action Levels, but do not alter any of the requirements of 
the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed 
changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any 
failure modes that could lead to an accident. Additionally, the 
proposed changes have no effect on the consequences of any analyzed 
accident since the changes do not affect any equipment related to 
accident mitigation. Based on this discussion, the proposed 
amendment does not increase the probability or consequence 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.
    These changes affect the North Anna and Surry Power Station 
Emergency Action Levels, but do not alter any of the requirements of 
the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. They do not 
modify any plant equipment and there is no impact on the capability 
of the existing equipment to perform their intended functions. No 
system setpoints are being modified. No new failure modes are 
introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed amendment, does not 
introduce any accident initiators or malfunctions that would cause a 
new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    These changes affect the North Anna and Surry Power Station 
Emergency Action Levels, but do not alter any of the requirements of 
the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed 
changes do not affect any of the assumptions used in the accident 
analysis, nor do they affect any operability requirements for 
equipment important to plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety in operation of the facility as 
discussed in this license amendment request.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.

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

[[Page 10002]]

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 
NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by 
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: January 31, 2011, supplemented 
by letter dated October 11, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the Spent 
Fuel Pool (SFP) storage requirements in PNP Technical Specifications 
(TS) Section 3.7.16 by revising a limiting condition for operation 
(LCO) for Region I fuel and non-fissile bearing component storage and 
by inserting tables containing spent fuel minimum burn-up for Regions 
1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E; and also modifies the Region I fuel storage 
criticality requirements, and design features in TS section 4.3, by 
describing revised requirements for Regions 1B and 1E and adding 
requirements for new Regions 1C and 1D.
    Date of issuance: January 27, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 246.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2011 (76 FR 
27096).
    The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and did 
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration 
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal 
Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 27, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: January 5, 2011, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 6 and 18, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.3, ``Safety/Relief Valves (SRVs) and Safety 
Valves (SVs).'' The original proposed TS changes would have revised the 
required number of SRVs required to be operable for overpressure 
protection and Anticipated Transient without Scram from eight to five. 
By letter dated October 6, 2011, the licensee revised its submittal by 
changing the proposed required number of SRVs to be operable from eight 
to seven.
    Date of issuance: January 31, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 240.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR 
67488).
    The supplemental letters dated October 6 and 18, 2011, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 23, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments replace non-
conservative values for five operating limits in the Technical 
Specifications with more conservative values that incorporate 
measurement uncertainty. Additionally, one of the operating limits will 
replace a tank volume expressed in cubic feet with a volume expressed 
in percent level to allow plant operators to directly verify the 
technical specification limit based on direct instrument readings.
    Date of issuance: January 30, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 246 (Unit 1) and 250 (Unit 2).
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: 
Amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR 
28475).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2011, as supplemented November 
11, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment replaces the 
Technical Specification surveillance 4.6.2.1.d 10-year surveillance 
frequency for testing the containment spray nozzles with an event-based 
frequency.
    Date of issuance: January 30, 2012.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 128.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the TS 
and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 6, 2011 (76 
FR 55130).
    The supplemental letter provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 10003]]

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendment: February 28, 2011, as 
supplemented by letters dated August 29, and December 16, 2011, and 
January 26, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment modifies the Hope 
Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications (TSs) to revise the 
existing TS for the control room emergency filtration system and to add 
a new TS for the control room air conditioning system. The amendment is 
based, in part, on Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-477, 
Revision 3, ``Adding an Action Statement for Two Inoperable Control 
Room Air Conditioning Subsystems.''
    Date of issuance: February 8, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 191.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
TSs and the Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 3, 2011 (76 FR 
24929).
    The letters dated August 29, and December 16, 2011, and January 26, 
2012, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand 
the application.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 8, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Docket No. 50-29, Yankee Nuclear Power 
Station, Franklin County, Massachusetts.

    Date of application for amendment: August 10, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment revises License 
Condition C(3) ``Physical Protection''. It updates the title of the 
Physical Security Plan, from the ``Yankee Nuclear Power Station 
Defueled Security Plan'' Revision 0, dated October 13, 1992, and 
``Yankee Defueled Security Training and Qualification Plan'' Revision 
0, dated October 13, 1992, to the ``Physical Security Plan for Yankee 
Rowe Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.''
    Amendment No.: 159.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-3. The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register. October 4, 2011 (76 FR 
61398).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 24, 2012.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-3822 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P