Biweekly Notice of Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 20070-20077 [2012-7676]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20070-20077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7676]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0078]


Biweekly Notice of Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or 
combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission 
that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from March 8, 2012, to March 21, 2012. The last 
biweekly notice was published on March 20, 2012 (77 FR 16271).

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 2012-0078.
    You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID 2012-0078. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID 2012-0078 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 ID 2012-0078.
     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. Documents may be viewed in 
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One

[[Page 20071]]

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID 2012-0078 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 and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 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; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or 
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of 
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 
which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC 
Library on the NRC's Web site at 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

[[Page 20072]]

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's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at 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'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 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

[[Page 20073]]

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.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specifications requirements related to primary 
containment isolation instrumentation. The changes are in accordance 
with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF), Improved Standard Technical Specifications change 
TSTF-306, Revision 2.
    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 addition of the note that the penetration flow path may be 
unisolated under administrative control provides consistency with 
what is already allowed elsewhere in TSs. The isolation function of 
the TIP [Traversing In-core Probe] valves is mitigative, and does 
not create any increased possibility of an accident. Also, the 
operation of the manual shear valves is unaffected by this activity. 
The ability to manually isolate the TIP system by either the normal 
isolation ball valves or the shear valves would be unaffected by the 
inoperable instrumentation. The Required Actions and their 
associated Completion Times are not initiating conditions for any 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed Change Create the Possibility of a New or 
Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures are introduced as result of the proposed changes. 
All systems, structures, and components previously required for the 
mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their 
intended design functions. The proposed changes have no adverse 
effects on any safety-related system or component and do not 
challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system. 
As a result no new failure modes are being introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Reduction in a 
Margin of Safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not affect the operation of plant 
equipment or the function of any equipment assumed in the accident 
analysis. The allowance to unisolate a penetration flow path will 
not have a significant effect on the margin of safety because the 
penetration flow path can be isolated manually, if needed. This 
change provides consistency with what is already allowed elsewhere 
in TSs. The option to isolate a TIP penetration will ensure the 
penetration will perform as designed in the accident analysis. The 
ability to manually isolate the TIP system is unaffected by the 
inoperable instrumentation. The proposed change does not impact any 
safety analysis assumptions or results.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. Masters, DTE Energy, General 
Council--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Shawn A. Williams.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 22, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Operating License (OL) Condition 3.S to allow Boiling Water 
Reactor Vessels and Internal Project (BWRVIP)-139-A ``BWR Vessel and 
Internals Project Steam Dryer Inspection and Flaw Evaluation 
Guidelines'' to be the basis for future steam dryer monitoring and 
inspections.
    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 amendment does not significantly increase the probability of 
an accident since it does not involve a change to any plant 
equipment that initiates a plant accident. The change affects the 
standard by which future steam dryer monitoring and structural 
integrity inspections are performed. The proposed standard has been 
approved for use by the NRC. The steam dryer is not an initiator or 
mitigator of any previously evaluated accidents. Maintaining 
structural integrity of the steam dryer ensures that systems and 
components that are credited in station safety analysis function as 
designed.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve any physical alteration 
of plant equipment and does not change the method by which any 
safety-related system performs its function. The change affects the 
standard by which future steam dryer monitoring and structural 
integrity inspections are performed. The proposed standard has been 
approved for use by the NRC. No new or different types of equipment 
will be installed and the basic operation of installed equipment is 
unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain 
consistent with current safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment affects the standard by which future 
steam dryer monitoring and structural integrity inspections are 
performed. The proposed standard has been approved for use by the 
NRC. The change does not affect design codes or design margins. The 
change provides for monitoring and inspection of the steam dryer to 
ensure the dryer maintains its integrity and does not affect safety 
related equipment. This ensures analyzed safety margins are 
maintained.
    Therefore, operation of VY in accordance with the proposed 
amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin to 
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., 400

[[Page 20074]]

Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 1, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 4.7.A.6.b to allow the drywell to 
suppression chamber leak rate test to be performed once per operating 
cycle. No changes to test acceptance criteria are proposed.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident since it does not involve 
a modification to any plant equipment or affect how plant systems or 
components are operated. No design functions or design parameters 
are affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment 
involves the scheduling of a surveillance requirement so that the 
affected surveillance can be done anytime during the operating 
cycle. The proposed amendment does not impact the ability of the 
vacuum breakers to function in the event of a LOCA [loss-of-coolant 
accident] during the test. Performance of the surveillance on line 
versus during a refuel outage does not pose a significant increase 
in risk. No changes to the acceptance criteria for the surveillance 
are proposed.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves the schedule for performing a TS 
surveillance requirement. The proposed change does not change the 
method by which any safety-related system performs its function. No 
new or different types of equipment will be installed and the test 
will be performed within the bounds of the TS requirements. The 
methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with 
current safety analysis assumptions. The proposed amendment involves 
the scheduling of a surveillance requirement so that the affected 
surveillance can be done anytime during the operating cycle. No 
changes to acceptance criteria for the surveillance are proposed.
    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 amendment involves the scheduling of a surveillance 
requirement so that the affected surveillance can be done anytime 
during the operating cycle. No changes to the acceptance criteria 
for the surveillance are proposed. The proposed change ensures that 
the safety functions of the pressure suppression chamber-drywell 
vacuum breakers continue to be fulfilled by performing the 
surveillance. The proposed amendment does not involve a physical 
modification of the plant and does not change the design or function 
of any component or system.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 5, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise VY Renewed Facility Operating License Condition (RFOLC) 3.P to 
clarify that the programs and activities described in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) supplement submitted pursuant to Title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 54.21(d), as revised 
during the license renewal application process, may be changed without 
prior NRC approval provided the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 have been 
previously satisfied. Additionally, RFOLC 3.Q is revised to clarify 
that the programs and activities, identified in Appendix A of 
Supplement 2 to NUREG-1907 and the UFSAR supplement, to be completed 
before the period of extended operation are completed on schedule and 
the NRC is to be notified upon completion of implementation of these 
activities.
    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 amendment does not significantly increase the probability of 
an accident since it does not involve a change to any plant 
equipment that initiates a plant accident. The change clarifies 
RFOLC 3.P and 3.Q. The license conditions deal with administrative 
controls over information contained in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) supplement. The proposed changes are 
administrative and the license conditions are not an initiator or 
mitigator of any previously evaluated accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated 
since it does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment 
and does not change the method by which any safety-related system 
performs its function. The license conditions deal with 
administrative controls over information contained in the UFSAR 
supplement. No new or different types of equipment will be installed 
and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not affect design codes or design 
margins. The change clarifies RFOLC 3.P and 3.Q, is administrative 
in nature and does not have the ability to affect analyzed safety 
margins.
    Therefore, operation of VY in accordance with the proposed 
amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin to 
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., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.

[[Page 20075]]

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

    Date of amendment request: March 1, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would make 
miscellaneous changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) and Facility 
Operating License (FOL) including: (1) Correction of typographical 
errors; (2) deletion of historical requirements that have expired; (3) 
corrections of errors or omissions from previous license amendment 
requests; and (4) updating of component lists to reflect current plant 
design.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below with Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to TS and the FOL are administrative in 
nature that correct typographical errors, or delete historical 
requirements that have expired. These changes do not affect the 
intent of any TS requirements.
    The proposed changes do not have any impact on structures, 
systems and components (SSCs) of the plant, and [have] no effect on 
plant operations. The proposed changes do not impact any accident 
initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events. The proposed changes to the technical 
specifications do not result in the addition or removal of any 
equipment but update component lists to reflect equipment that was 
previously removed or abandoned.
    Therefore, these proposed changes do not represent a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to TS and the FOL are administrative in 
nature that correct typographical errors, or delete historical 
requirements that have expired. These changes do not affect the 
intent of any TS requirements.
    The proposed changes do 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 changes 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, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to TS and the FOL are editorial in nature 
that correct typographical errors, or delete historical requirements 
that have expired. These changes do not affect the intent of any TS 
requirements.
    The proposed changes incorporate corrections to the TS and FOL 
and result in improved accuracy of these licensing documents. There 
is no change to any design basis, licensing basis or safety limit, 
and no change to any parameters; consequently no safety margins are 
affected.
    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, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it 
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. 
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC-N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

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

    The 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.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: March 8, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment allows a one-time 
temporary extension of 24 hours to the Completion Time for Condition C 
in the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) Unit 2 Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.7, ``Distribution Systems-Operating,'' to allow 
a Unit 1 4160 V subsystem to be de-energized and removed from service 
for 96 hours to perform modifications on the bus. It also allows a one-
time temporary extension of 24 hours to the Completion Time for 
Condition A in SSES Unit 2 TS 3.7.1, ``Plant Systems-RHRSW [residual 
heat removal service water system] and UHS [ultimate heat sink],'' to 
allow the UHS spray array and spray array bypass valves associated with 
applicable division RHRSW, and in Condition B, the applicable division 
Unit 2 RHRSW subsystem, to be inoperable for 96 hours during the Unit 1 
4160 V bus breaker control logic modifications.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: March 
16, 2012 (77 FR 15814)
    Expiration date of individual notice: Comment period, April 16, 
2012; Hearing period, May 15, 2012.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance

[[Page 20076]]

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.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, 
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: June 30, 2011, as supplemented 
by letters dated July 11, 2011, January 12, 2012, and February 1, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.13, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Operational 
LEAKAGE,'' TS 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 5.6.8, 
``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Inspection Report.'' Specifically, the 
amendments revised the TSs to accomplish the following objectives: 
permanently exclude portions of a steam generator (SG) tube below the 
top of the SG tubesheet from periodic SG tube inspections and plugging, 
permanently reduce the primary-to-secondary leakage limit, and 
permanently implement reporting requirement changes that had been 
previously established on a one-cycle basis.
    Date of issuance: March 12, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to entering the applicable Modes of the affected TS at the 
completion of the outage.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--267 and Unit 2--263.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 19, 2012 (77 FR 
2766).
    The supplemental letters dated July 11, 2011, January 12, 2012, and 
February 1, 2012, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments and final 
NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 
2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: June 2, 2011, as supplemented 
on November 10, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications for each unit by changing the method of 
calculating core reactivity for the purpose of performing the 
reactivity anomaly surveillance at Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 
and 2. The change allows performance of the surveillance based on a 
comparison of predicted to actual (monitored) core reactivity. The 
reactivity anomaly verification was previously determined by a 
comparison of predicted versus actual control rod density.
    Date of issuance: March 14, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 207 and 168.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. These amendments 
revised the license and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 9, 2011 (76 FR 
48911).
    The supplement dated November 10, 2011, clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate 
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-254, Quad Cities Nuclear 
Power Station, Unit 1, Rock Island County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: June 7, 2011, as supplemented by 
letters dated. September 21, 2011, November 2, 2011, and January 9, 
2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the value of 
the single recirculation loop operation (SLO) safety limit minimum 
critical power ratio (SLMCPR) in Technical Specifications Section 
2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits].'' Specifically, the revision 
replaces the current SLO SLMCPR requirement for QCNPS Unit 1 with a new 
SLMCPR requirement. The revision is necessary because of errors that 
were discovered in the Westinghouse McSLAP computer code that resulted 
in a non-conservative SLO SLMCPR.
    Date of issuance: March 8, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 250.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2011 (72 FR 
50762).
    The September 21, 2011, November 2, 2011, and January 9, 2012, 
supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC 
staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards 
consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear 
Power Station, Unit 2, Rock Island County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: November 22, 2011, as 
supplemented by letter dated January 9, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the value of 
the single recirculation loop operation (SLO) and dual recirculation 
loop operation (DLO) safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) 
in Technical Specifications Section 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety 
Limits].'' Specifically, the revision replaces the current SLO and DLO 
SLMCPR

[[Page 20077]]

requirement for QCNPS Unit 2 with a new SLMCPR requirement. The 
revision is necessary because of errors that were discovered in the 
Westinghouse McSLAP computer code that resulted in non-conservative 
SLMCPR.values.
    Date of issuance: March 8, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 245.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-30: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2012 (77 FR 
140).
    The January 9, 2012, supplement, contained clarifying information 
and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no 
significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 8, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), 
Beaver County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: May 27, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise Technical 
Specifications (TSs) associated with replacing sodium hydroxide with 
sodium tetraborate as a chemical additive for containment sump pH 
control following a loss-of-coolant accident at BVPS-1. Due to common 
TSs for BVPS-1 and 2, administrative changes were made to BVPS-2 
license to reflect the BVPS-1 changes.
    Date of issuance: March 14, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to achieving Mode 4 during startup from the BVPS-1 refueling 
outage in the spring of 2012.
    Amendment Nos.: 289 and 176.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments 
revise the Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 10, 2012 (77 FR 
1518).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March 2012.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-7676 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P