Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 22808-22823 [2012-9169]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22808-22823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9169]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0090]


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

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or the 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 22, 2012 to April 4, 2012. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 3, 2012 (77 FR 20070).

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-2012-0090. 
You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0090. 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 NRC-2012-0090 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 NRC-2012-0090.
     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 White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0090 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)

[[Page 22809]]

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 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 information (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 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 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

[[Page 22810]]

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 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.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, (HBRSEP), Darlington County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 10, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises the 
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements (SRs) for 
addressing a missed surveillance. The change is consistent with the 
NRC-approved Revision 6 of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard Technical Specifications (STSs) Change Traveler TSTF-358, 
``Missed Surveillance Requirements.''
    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. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change to incorporate the requirements of improved 
STS SR 3.0.3 into corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, respectively, 
does not affect the design or operation of the plant. The proposed 
change involves revising the existing HBRSEP custom TS to be 
consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 3, to facilitate the 
incorporation of TSTF-358 into the TS. The proposed change involves 
no technical changes to the existing TS as it merely clarifies how 
SRs are met. As such, these changes are administrative in nature and 
do not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of 
accident or transient events.
    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 to incorporate the requirements of improved 
STS SR 3.0.3 into corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, respectively, 
does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods 
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change revises the 
existing HBRSEP TS to be consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 3, to 
clarify how SRs are met and facilitates the incorporation of TSTF-
358 for addressing missed surveillances. As such, the proposed 
change will not impose any new or different requirements or 
eliminate any existing requirements.
    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.
    The proposed change to incorporate the requirements of improved 
STS SR 3.0.3 into corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, respectively, 
does not affect plant operation or safety analysis assumptions in 
any way. The change provides additional clarification on how a 
surveillance is met and facilitates the incorporation of TSTF-358 
for addressing missed surveillances. The change is administrative in 
nature and does not affect the operation of safety-related systems, 
structures, or components.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 22811]]


    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: David T. Conley, Manager--Senior Counsel--
Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: March 16, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would make 
corrections in the Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1-1 Note 1 
for Overtemperature Delta Temperature (OT[Delta]T). The corrections are 
consistent with NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specification 
Westinghouse Plants'', Revision 3. The proposed change to TS Table 
3.3.1-1 Note 1 corrects the inequality symbol associated with the 
nominal Reactor Coolant System operating pressure (P'). The P' provided 
in TS Table 3.3.1-1 Note 1 was incorrectly specified as less than or 
equal to (<=) 2235 pounds per square inch gage (psig) and is being 
corrected to greater than or equal to (>=) 2235 psig. In addition, the 
f([Delta]I) penalty factor for axial power distribution values less 
than -17 percent Rated Thermal Power (RTP) or less than 12 percent RTP 
is currently specified as ``2.4'' and is being clarified to 2.4%.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is a correction to the equation for 
OT[Delta]T setpoint and the inputs for f([Delta]I) shown in Table 
3.3.1-1 Note 1. The OT[Delta]T equation and variables values serve 
as a model for trip setpoint calculation. The errors in Table 3.3.1-
1 being addressed by this proposed change were contained in and 
introduced during the implementation of NUREG-1431, Improved 
Standard Technical Specifications, Revision 1. The proposed changes 
are consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 3, which has corrected 
these errors. The OT[Delta]T parameter limits continue to be 
determined using the NRC methodologies and OT[Delta]T will continue 
to be within the limit assumed in the accident analysis. As a 
result, neither the probability nor the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated will be affected.
    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 or different accidents result from the proposed changes. 
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., 
no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change 
in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the 
changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate 
any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made 
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are 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.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This change will have no effect on the margin of safety. This 
proposed change is a correction to the OT[Delta]T setpoint 
calculation and the inputs for f([Delta]I).
    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: David T. Conley, Manager--Senior Counsel--Legal 
Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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: December 8, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would: (1) 
extend the frequency of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.1.3 
(calibration of loss of power instrumentation) from 18 to 24 months, 
and (2) revise the Allowable Values of certain functions in Table 
3.3.8.1-1 of Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.8.1, ``Loss of Power 
(LOP) Instrumentation.'' The SR extension will make the administration 
and performance of that SR consistent with the River Bend Station's 24-
month operating cycles, as approved by the NRC in Amendment No. 168 
dated August 31, 2010. The changes to the Allowable Values are 
necessary to address the discovery of a non-conservative value in the 
affected TS 3.3.8.1.
    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.
    SR extension:
    The proposed TS change revises a surveillance testing interval 
to facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. The proposed 
TS change involves no physical alteration of the plant. The proposed 
TS change does not degrade the performance of, or increase the 
challenges to, any safety systems assumed to function in the 
accident analysis. The proposed TS change does not adversely affect 
the usefulness of the SR in evaluating the operability of required 
system and components, or the way in which the surveillance is 
performed. In addition, the frequency of surveillance testing is not 
considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a 
revision to the frequency introduce any accident initiators. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not 
significantly increased. The proposed change does not affect the 
performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological 
consequences of an accident. Evaluation of the proposed TS change 
has demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is not 
significantly affected because of other more frequent testing that 
is performed, the availability of redundant systems and equipment, 
and the high reliability of the equipment. Historical review of 
surveillance test results and associated maintenance records did not 
find evidence of failures that would invalidate the above 
conclusions.
    AV changes:
    The change in the degraded voltage protection voltage and time 
delay allowable values allows the protection scheme to function as 
originally designed. (This change will involve alteration of nominal 
trip setpoints in the field, also to be reflected in revisions to 
the calibration procedures.) The proposed allowable values ensure 
that the Class 1 E distribution system remains connected to the 
offsite power system when adequate offsite voltage is available and 
motor starting transients are considered.

[[Page 22812]]

Calculations have demonstrated that adequate margin is present to 
support the decrease in the minimum allowable Division 3 degraded 
voltage. The proposed time delay continues to provide equipment 
protection while preventing a premature separation from offsite 
power. The diesel start due to a Loss of Coolant Accident signal is 
not adversely affected by this change. During an actual degraded 
voltage condition, the degraded voltage time delays will continue to 
isolate the Class 1 E distribution system from offsite power before 
the diesel is ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the 
limiting time basis for mitigating system responses to the accident. 
For this reason, the existing loss of power/loss of coolant accident 
analysis continues to be valid.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    SR extension:
    The proposed TS change revises a surveillance testing interval 
to facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. The proposed 
TS change does not introduce any failure mechanisms of a different 
type than those previously evaluated, since there are no physical 
changes being made to the facility. No new or different equipment is 
being installed. No installed equipment is being operated in a 
different manner. As a result, no new failure modes are being 
introduced. The way surveillance tests are performed remains 
unchanged. A historical review of surveillance test results and 
associated maintenance records indicated there was no evidence of 
any failures that would invalidate the above conclusions.
    AV changes:
    The proposed change involves the revision of degraded voltage 
protection voltage and time delay allowable values to satisfy 
existing design requirements.
    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.
    SR extension:
    The proposed TS change revises a surveillance testing interval 
to facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. The effect of 
this change on system availability is not significant, based on 
other more frequent testing that is performed, the existence of 
redundant systems and equipment, and overall system reliability. 
Evaluation has shown there is no evidence of time dependent failures 
that would affect the availability of the systems. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect the condition or performance of 
structures, systems, and components relied upon for accident 
mitigation. The proposed change does not result in any hardware 
changes or in any changes to the analytical limits assumed in 
accident analyses. Existing operating margin between plant 
conditions and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced 
due to these changes. The proposed change does not significantly 
affect any safety analysis assumptions or results.
    AV changes:
    The proposed protection voltage allowable values are low enough 
to prevent inadvertent power supply transfer, but high enough to 
ensure that sufficient voltage is available to the required 
equipment. The proposed time delay continues to provide equipment 
protection while preventing a premature separation from offsite 
power. The diesel start due to a Loss of Coolant Accident signal is 
not adversely affected by this change. During an actual degraded 
voltage condition, the degraded voltage time delays will continue to 
isolate the Class 1 E distribution system from off site power before 
the diesel is ready to assume the emergency loads. 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: 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 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 the Technical Specification 3.3.B.3 allowances for bypassing the 
Rod Worth Minimizer (RWM) consistent with the allowances recommended in 
the Standard Technical Specifications.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident. The RWM is credited to 
minimize the probability and consequences of a control rod drop 
accident however this amendment proposes to substitute additional 
administrative requirements that ensure the analysis remains 
conservative and bounding. The additional requirements are 
considered adequate so as not to have a significant impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident. Individuals performing 
the additional verification of selected control rods are qualified 
and use additional process controls to ensure they perform the 
necessary verifications. 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 new modes of 
operation. The change established additional administrative controls 
for when the RWM system is inoperable. The administrative controls 
involve performing an independent verification that the correct 
control rod is selected. The proposed amendment does not change how 
the control rods are moved or change the design configuration of the 
control rods. No new accident precursors are introduced. No new or 
different types of equipment will be installed. The methods 
governing plant operation remain bounded by current safety analysis 
assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment establishes additional administrative 
requirements for when the RWM is inoperable. The additional 
administrative controls provide reasonable assurance that station 
safety analysis results are unchanged and existing safety margins 
are preserved. The amendment ensures that control rod selection 
remains within established withdrawal sequences and minimizes the 
probability that a human error will result is an out of sequence rod 
being moved. 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.

[[Page 22813]]

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 12, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
request to approve revision of License Renewal Commitment (LRC) No. 3 
and No. 6 as described in Appendix A of Supplement 2 to NUREG-1907. 
Specifically, LRC No. 3 would be revised to clarify that cleaning and 
inspecting of the fire pump diesel storage tank is not required in 
order to perform ultrasonic thickness (UT) measurements of the tank 
bottom surface and LRC No. 6 would be revised to use manual cycle 
counting to track and compare accumulated cycles against allowable 
values to determine if cumulative usage factors are required to be 
updated.
    The proposed amendment would also approve revision of LRC No. 16 
and LRC No. 19, which require, respectively, implementation of the One 
Time Inspection Program as described License Renewal Application (LRA) 
Section B.1.21, and implementation of the Selective Leaching Program as 
described in LRA Section B.1.25. Specifically, the proposed amendment 
would approve revising the Aging Management Program for Selective 
Leaching described in LRA Section B.1.25 to provide alternative 
assessment methods for gray cast iron components and approve revising 
the One-Time Inspection Program described in LRA Section B.1.21 to 
remove the reactor vessel flange leak-off line and main stream line 
flow restrictors from the 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 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 revises 
license renewal commitments and aging management programs. License 
renewal commitments and aging management programs are in place to 
ensure that the effects of aging are properly managed for the 
systems, structures and components within the scope of the programs 
during the period of extended operation. The proposed changes 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 change revises license renewal 
commitments and aging management programs. License renewal 
commitments and aging management programs are in place to ensure 
that the effects of aging are properly managed for the systems, 
structures and components within the scope of the programs during 
the period of extended operation. 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 revises license renewal commitments and aging 
management programs. License renewal commitments and aging 
management programs are in place to ensure that the effects of aging 
are properly managed for the systems, structures and components 
within the scope of the programs during the period of extended 
operation. The proposed changes do 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.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: October 13, 2011, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 25, 2011, and January 18, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify 
Technical Specification (TSs) 3/4.7.4 Table 3.7-3, ``Ultimate Heat Sink 
Minimum Fan Requirements Per Train,'' which indicates the minimum Dry 
Cooling Tower (DCT) and Wet Cooling Tower (WCT) fan requirements for 
given meteorological conditions. The amendment would modify the WCT fan 
requirements by placing a limit on the number of inoperable fans per 
cell. This change is needed because the current TS requirement was 
found to be non-conservative. To address non-conservatisms in the TS, 
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), has implemented 
administrative controls that limit the number of WCT fans allowed out-
of-service per cell. In concert with the above change, the dry bulb 
temperature limits for the DCT and wet bulb temperature limits for the 
WCT will also be lowered to accommodate the increased heat load 
resulting from the Replacement Steam Generators.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies TS 3/4.7.4 Table 3.7-3 to be 
consistent with the revised design basis calculation. This change is 
necessary to preserve the assumptions and limits of the revised UHS 
[ultimate heat sink] design basis calculation. The calculation 
determines the maximum number of cooling tower fans allowed out-of-
service for a given wet or dry bulb temperature and establishes more 
restrictive cooling tower fan operating requirements. The proposed 
change does not directly affect any material condition of the plant 
that could contribute to an accident or that could contribute to the 
consequences of an accident. The proposed change ensures that the 
mitigating effects of the UHS will be consistent with the design 
basis analysis. Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies TS 3/4.7.4 Table 3.7-3 to be 
consistent with the revised design basis calculation. The revised 
calculation lowers the dry and wet bulb temperature limits to 
account for increased heat duty for the Replacement Steam 
Generators. This change also implements more restrictive WCT minimum 
fan requirements. The proposed change to Table 3.7-3 does not alter 
the operation of the plant

[[Page 22814]]

or the manner in which the plant is operated such that it created 
credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies TS 3/4.7.4 Table 3.7-3 to be 
consistent with the revised design basis calculation. More 
restrictive cooling tower fan operability requirements result from 
placing lower limits on the wet and dry bulb temperatures in the TS 
and limits on the number of WCT out-of-service fans per cell. These 
revised temperatures are based on calculations ECM98-009 and ECl91-
029, and an additional allowance to account for minor inaccuracies. 
The TS Bases 3.4/7.4 indicates that the calculated temperature 
values associated with the DCT and WCT fan requirements have been 
rounded in the conservative direction and lowered at least one full 
degree to account for minor inaccuracies. The proposed change 
preserves the margin of safety by ensuring that the minimum number 
of operable fans per cell for a given temperature are capable of 
removing the heat duty for the UHS. The proposed change does not 
exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit.
    Therefore, the proposed change will 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 Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: November 21, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would relocate the 
following Technical Specifications (TSs) to the Waterford Steam 
Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), Technical Requirements Manual: 
(a) TS 3.4.6, ``Chemistry,'' (b) TS 3.7.5, ``Flood Protection,'' (c) TS 
3.7.9, ``Sealed Source Contamination,'' and (d) TS 3.9.5, 
``Communications.''
    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.
    This proposed change relocates Technical Specifications (TS) 
3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 3.7.5 (Flood Protection), TS 3.7.9 (Sealed 
Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5 (Communications) to the 
Waterford 3 Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). This is consistent 
with the requirements of [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] and aligns with 
NUREG-1432 (Combustion Engineering Standard Technical 
Specifications).
    Each TS relocation was evaluated against the [10 CFR 
50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria to demonstrate no impact on the design 
basis accident or probability. Consequently, this change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS 3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 3.7.5 (Flood Protection), 
TS 3.7.9 (Sealed Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5 
(Communications) relocation to the Waterford 3 TRM does not change 
any of the controls necessary for design basis accident initiation 
or mitigation. The proposed change is allowable because the 
evaluation against the [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria shows no 
impact. This provides assurance that the design basis accidents will 
remain within their initial assumptions and consequently, there is 
no possibility of a new or different kind of accident due to this 
change.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS 3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 3.7.5 (Flood Protection), 
TS 3.7.9 (Sealed Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5 
(Communications) relocation to the Waterford 3 TRM will not affect 
protection criterion for plant equipment and will not reduce the 
margin of safety. The Waterford 3 TRM requires the [10 CFR 50.59] 
process be entered for any corresponding change, thus maintaining 
the required margin of safety. Consequently, there is no significant 
reduction in a margin of safety due to this change.

    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.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: March 19, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The NRC issued Amendment No. 239, 
Departure from a Method of Evaluation for the Auxiliary Building 
Overhead Crane (FHCR-5), on December 27, 2011. Amendment No. 239 was 
approved to be implemented within 180 days of issuance of the 
amendment. In license amendment request 312, Revision 0, the licensee 
requested additional time to complete the implementation of Amendment 
No. 239 from 180 days to, ``Implementation shall be completed 90 days 
prior to moving a spent fuel shipping cask with FHCR-5.'' The licensee 
requested extending the implementation period to allow for installation 
and testing of the new single failure proof FHCR-5.
    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 not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed LAR implementation schedule change request is 
administrative in nature and does not require any physical plant 
modifications, physically affect any plant systems or components, or 
entail changes in plant operation. The spent fuel will remain in the 
pool and continue to be cooled until the cask operations commence 
after implementation is complete.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed LAR implementation schedule change request is 
administrative in nature and does not require any physical plant 
modifications, physically affect any plant systems or components, or 
entail changes in plant operation. Maintenance and modification 
activities near the spent fuel pools are controlled to preclude the 
possibility of a heavy load drop. No new accident scenarios, failure 
mechanisms or limiting single failures are introduced as result of 
the proposed change. The proposed amendment implementation schedule 
change request has no adverse effects on any safety-related system.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 22815]]

    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The proposed LAR implementation schedule change request is 
administrative in nature and does not require any physical plant 
modifications, physically affect any plant systems or components, or 
entail changes in plant operation. The proposed amendment 
implementation schedule change request does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, FPC [the licensee] concludes that the 
proposed license amendment request presents no significant hazards 
consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c) and, 
accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' 
is justified.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 14, 2010, as supplemented August 24, 
2010, September 16, 2011, and March 15, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The license amendment request was 
originally noticed in the Federal Register on July 13, 2010 (75 FR 
39979). This notice is being reissued in its entirety to include a 
revised description of the amendment request. The proposed changes 
would revise the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications (TSs) 
governing the Containment Enclosure Emergency Air Cleanup System 
(CEEACS). The proposed amendment would change TS Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 4.6.5.1.d.4 so that it will demonstrate integrity of 
the containment enclosure building rather than operability of CEEACS. 
The proposed amendment relocates SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 with modifications to 
new SR 4.6.5.2.b. Additionally, the proposed amendment makes some minor 
wording changes, deletes a definition, and removes a moot footnote.
    Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR 
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the 
licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC 
staff's review is presented below:
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 changes neither adversely 
affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter design assumptions. 
The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of operable 
SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of 
an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    This change is a revision to the TSs SRs for the CEEACS, which is a 
mitigation system designed to prevent uncontrolled releases of 
radioactivity into the environment. The proposed amendment would change 
TS SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 so that it will demonstrate integrity of the 
containment enclosure building rather than operability of CEEACS. The 
proposed amendment relocates SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 with modifications to new 
SR 4.6.5.2.b. The CEEACS is not an initiator or precursor to any 
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any 
accident previously evaluated is not increased.
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 will not impact the accident analysis. The 
changes will not alter the requirements of the CEEACS or its function 
during accident conditions, and no new or different accidents result 
from the proposed changes to the TSs. The changes do not involve a 
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the method of 
plant operation. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. Therefore, this request 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 a 
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 changes do not involve a 
significant change in the method of plant operation, and no accident 
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the 
proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety 
limits, will not relax any safety system settings, and will not relax 
the bases for any limiting conditions for operation. 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 bases. 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: Meena Khanna.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: January 20, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to revise 
the MNGP Technical Specifications (TS), adding a new Section 5.6.5 to 
specify requirements about the contents of a Pressure and Temperature 
Limits Report (PTLR), and to replace existing TS requirements regarding 
reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rate limits and the pressure and 
temperature (P-T) limit curves referencing the PTLR. The proposed new 
Section 5.6.5 is consistent with the guidance provided in NRC Generic 
Letter 96-03, ``Relocation of the Pressure Temperature Limit Curves and 
Low Temperature Overpressure Protection System Limits.'' These new 
curves have been developed applying the analytical methodology 
described in Structural Integrity Associates (SIA) Report SIR-05-044-A, 
``Pressure-Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water 
Reactors,'' which has previously received NRC approval.

[[Page 22816]]

    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 (NSHC). The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's NSHC 
analysis and has prepared its own as follows:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Appendix G of 10 CFR 50 requires licensees to establish limits 
for the pressure and temperature of the reactor coolant pressure 
boundary (RCPB) in order to protect against brittle failure. These 
limits are defined by P-T curves, which, when properly defined and 
adhered to, will protect the RCPB against brittle failure regardless 
of where these curves and associated requirements are located. The 
proposed amendment only affects the location of the P-T limits 
curves and associated requirements. The proposed amendment will 
continue to ensure that P-T limits acceptable to the NRC staff are 
employed at Monticello. There will be no design change associated 
with the proposed amendment. Thus, there will be no increase in the 
consequences of previously evaluated accidents. In addition, since 
previously evaluated accidents were not assumed to be initiated by 
the approved P-T limits, the proposed amendment, which will require 
operation within approved P-T limits, will cause no increase in the 
probability of occurrence 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 amendment does not affect the safety function of 
the P-T limits, or any plant system, structure, or component (SSC) 
previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not involve 
installation of any new SSC, and the existing installed SSC will not 
be operated in a new or different manner. The relocated P-T limit 
requirements will continue to protect the RCPB against brittle 
failures. No setpoints will be changed which would alter the dynamic 
response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are 
introduced. The proposed amendment, therefore, does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment will not alter any previously used safety 
analysis methods, scenarios, acceptance criteria, or assumptions. 
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
its own analysis, concludes that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) 
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for the licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General 
Counsel, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 
55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: Shawn A. Williams, Acting.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: December 23, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to incorporate a new Radial 
Peaking Factor definition and to clarify Limiting Condition for 
Operation 2.10.2(6), ``Shutdown CEA [Control Element Assembly] 
Insertion Limit During Power Operation.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    [Response: No.]
    There are no changes in plant systems, plant control operating 
procedures or instrument alarm or trip settings associated with this 
LAR [license amendment request]. Because neither physical equipment 
nor operating methods for that equipment change, the probability of 
accident initiation does not change. Therefore, the proposed TS 
change does not does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The Unrodded Integrated Radial Peaking factor (FR) 
has been used in past safety analyses and radiological consequence 
analyses. These analyses utilized the assumption that FR 
would remain within the TS limit during plant operations. These 
analyses verify, for anticipated operational occurrences (AOO) and 
postulated accidents (PA), that:
    1. The departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) remains 
above the appropriate TS Safety Limit, and
    2. The calculated offsite doses and control room dose for the 
affected events remain within the guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67, 10 CFR 
100, and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC) 19, 
``Control room.''
    All current safety analysis calculations are performed using the 
Maximum Radial Peaking Factor (FR\T\) limit (which remains 
unchanged), without exceeding the specified Safety Limits. The 
radiological consequence events have used the FR\T\ limit to 
determine the source strength.
    Because the results of the transient analyses meet the Safety 
Limits, and because the dose consequences of all analyzed events are 
within the guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67, 10 CFR 100, and GDC 19, the 
proposed LAR does not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The remaining changes are administrative or editorial in nature. 
Therefore, operation of the plant in accordance with the proposed TS 
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.]
    Operation of the plant in accordance with the proposed TS does 
not add any new equipment, settings, or alter any plant operating 
practices. The Unrodded Integrated Radial Peaking Factor 
(FR) is a peaking factor no longer used in core design or 
safety analyses. The definition of ``Maximum Radial Peaking Factor'' 
(FR\T\) is incorporated into the TS and current requirements for, 
and references to FR\T\, are revised accordingly to reflect modern 
day incore monitoring systems. The remaining changes are 
administrative or editorial in nature. Since there are no changes in 
operating plant equipment, settings, or normal operating practices, 
operation in accordance with the proposed TS 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 disposition of the [Updated Final Safety Analysis] Chapter 
14 events, the setpoint verification, the fuel centerline melt (FCM) 
and the minimum DNBR analyses will continue to use the Maximum 
Radial Peaking Factor in accordance with approved methods. A 
detailed XCOBRA-IIIC model, which incorporates the limiting radial 
and axial power distributions, is applied to pre-trip departure from 
nucleate boiling (DNB) event analyses to determine the minimum DNBR 
values for limiting AOOs and PAs with the high thermal performance 
(HTP) DNB correlation. A post-trip event (Main Steam Line Break) has 
all CEAs inserted except for the most reactive CEA, and therefore 
has different radial and axial power distributions to which the Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR) FR\T\ limit does not apply. The 
calculated results for the limiting events meet the Safety Limits 
specified in the TS. A simplified XCOBRA-IIIC model is used in the 
verification of the plant protection system setpoints.
    Therefore, operation of the plant in accordance with the 
proposed TS 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 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

[[Page 22817]]

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: February 14, 2012, and revised on March 
12, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle Electric Generating 
Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, respectively, in regard to the structural 
module stud size and spacing by increasing the carbon steel vertical 
stud spacing, decreasing the stainless steel stud diameter, and 
decreasing the stainless steel vertical and horizontal stud spacing in 
accordance with the design basis. The departure from Tier 2* 
information involves changes to Sheet 1 of plant-specific Design 
Control Document Figure 3.8.3-8.
    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 design function of the containment modules is to support the 
reactor coolant system components and related piping systems and 
equipment. The design functions of the affected structural module in 
the auxiliary building are to provide support and protection for new 
and spent fuel and the equipment needed to support fuel handling, 
cooling, and storage in the spent fuel racks, and to provide 
support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I 
mechanical and electrical equipment located outside the containment 
building. The design function of the shear studs is to transfer 
loads into the concrete of the structural modules. The proposed 
change corrects a drawing note regarding shear stud size and spacing 
for structural wall modules to be consistent with the underlying 
design basis calculations, which are more conservative. The 
thickness, geometry, and strength of the structures are not 
adversely altered. The properties of the concrete included in the 
modules are not altered. As a result, the design function of the 
structural modules is not adversely affected by the proposed change. 
There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to 
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted 
radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident 
conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or 
external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change 
described create any new accident precursors. Therefore, there is no 
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 corrects a drawing note regarding shear stud 
size and spacing for structural wall modules to be consistent with 
the underlying design basis calculations. Stud spacing and sizing 
are updated such that stud loadings are within acceptable limits and 
that the structural module acts in a composite manner. The 
thickness, geometry, and strength of the structures are not 
adversely altered. The material and thickness of the steel plates 
are not altered. The properties of the concrete included in the 
modules are not altered. The change to the internal design of the 
structural modules does not create any new accident precursors. As a 
result, the design function of the modules is not adversely affected 
by the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change will not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No
    The criteria and requirements of the [American Institute of 
Steel Construction (AISC) Code] AISC-N690 provide a margin of safety 
to structural failure. The design of the shear studs for the 
structural wall modules conforms to criteria and requirements in 
AISC-N690 and therefore maintains the margin of safety. The proposed 
change corrects a drawing note regarding shear stud size and spacing 
for the structural wall modules so as to be consistent with the 
underlying design basis calculations. There was no change to the 
method of evaluation from that used in the design basis 
calculations. Therefore, the proposed change will not result in a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety in the design and 
analysis of the structural modules, including the containment 
internal structures and module CA20 in the auxiliary building.

    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. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Mark E. Tonacci.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission'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.

[[Page 22818]]

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: January 20, 2011, as 
supplemented by letter dated February 23, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air,'' 
Condition D, changing the emergency diesel generator starting air 
receiver low air pressure limit from 100 pounds per square inch gauge 
(psig) to 150 psig, and corrects an editorial error related to the 
numbering format in TS 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--Shutdown,'' Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) Condition A, Required Action, from A.1.1 
to A.1.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 228.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. The amendment 
revised the TSs and the Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR 
21922). The February 23, 2012, 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 March 30, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power

    Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
    Date of application for amendment: January 13, 2011, as 
supplemented by letters dated October 6, 2011, February 24, and March 
20, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.3.1 ``Fuel Assemblies'' to change the description 
of fuel assemblies and added the AREVA NP Inc. Topical Report BAW-
10240(P)-A, ``Incorporation of M5TM Properties in Framatome 
ANP Approved Methods,'' to the analytical methods referenced in TS 
6.9.1.6. ``Core Operating Limits Report.'' The amendment also deletes 
existing analytical methodologies that are no longer planned to be used 
by the licensee in TS 6.9.1.6.2 to allow the use of M5TM 
alloy for fuel rod cladding in future operating cycles.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No. 137.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63. Amendment revised 
the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR 
21922). The October 6, 2011, February 24, and March 20, 2012, 
supplements 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 amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

    Date of application for amendment: May 9, 2011, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 30, and October 31, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the current 
licensing basis regarding the manner in which service water is supplied 
to the component cooling heat exchangers by the main return valves and 
the bypass flow control valves.
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 211.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: The amendment revised the 
Updated Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR 
67487).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of application for amendment: March 3, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-21 for the Columbia Generating Station. The 
changes either delete or modify existing license conditions which have 
been completed, modified, or are otherwise no longer in effect. The 
proposed changes were requested in order to support the Columbia 
license renewal effort.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2012.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 223.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR 
31372).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of application for amendment: November 3, 2009, as 
supplemented by letters dated February 8, 2010, May 18, 2010, June 3, 
2010, June 18, 2010, July 29, 2010, September 29, 2010, December 13, 
2010, December 14, 2010, May 3, 2011, May 16, 2011, May 26, 2011, May 
31, 2011, June 13, 2011, June 28, 2011, July 22, 2011, September 28, 
2011, October 18, 2011, October 26, 2011, November 8, 2011, and 
December 1, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to reflect replacement of the existing Average 
Power Range Monitor (APRM), Local Power Range Monitor, and Flow Unit 
subsystems of the Neutron Monitoring System with a digital General 
Electric Hitachi Nuclear Measurement Analysis and Control (NUMAC) Power 
Range Neutron Monitoring System (PRNMS). The replacement system will 
also change GGNS's Oscillating Power Range Monitoring (OPRM) function 
from an Enhanced Option 1 A solution to Option III, which provides an 
automatic instability detect-and-suppress long-term reactor core 
stability solution. These changes are based on prior NRC approvals of 
licensing topical reports for NUMAC-based PRNMS equipment and other 
power plant experiences when performing similar changes. In addition, 
the amendment added a provision to the facility operating license that 
allows a monitoring period for the APRM scram function 2.f, ``OPRM 
Upscale,'' before this function's trip output to the reactor protection 
system trip system would be enabled. This license provision allows the 
limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) that would otherwise be

[[Page 22819]]

associated with the ``OPRM Upscale'' function 2.f to be deferred until 
the monitoring period is complete and the OPRM trip output is 
permanently enabled. The amendment also revised the TSs in accordance 
with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler (TSTF) TSTF-493, 
Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS 
[limiting safety system settings] Functions,'' to add surveillance 
notes in accordance with option A of TSTF 493, Revision 4, to address 
instrumentation LCO issues that could occur during periodic testing and 
calibration of instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup from refueling outage number 18.
    Amendment No: 188.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (75 FR 
462). The supplemental letters dated February 8, 2010, May 18, 2010, 
June 3, 2010, June 18, 2010, July 29, 2010, September 29, 2010, 
December 13, 2010, December 14, 2010, May 3, 2011, May 16, 2011, May 
31, 2011, June 13, 2011, June 28, 2011, July 22, 2011, September 28, 
2011, October 18, 2011, October 26, 2011, November 8, 2011, and 
December 1, 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 March 28, 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 14, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.3.1, ``Leakage Detection Systems,'' for Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, to support the addition of an 
alternative method of verifying that unidentified leakage in the 
drywell is within limits. The alternate method uses the installed 
drywell equipment drain sump (DWEDS) monitoring system, with the 
drywell floor drain sump (DWFDS) overflowing to the DWEDS, to verify 
that Reactor Coolant System leakage in the drywell is within limits. 
This configuration would only be used when the DWFDS monitoring system 
is unavailable.
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 208 and 169.
    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 
48912).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 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.

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 31, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments would revise the 
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 TS Bases changes that reflect the proposed changes 
and more accurately reflect the contents of the facility design basis 
related to operability of the RCS leakage detection instrumentation. 
Insofar as the St. Lucie Plant has custom TSs and TS Bases, to the 
extent practical, these changes are consistent with the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission approved Revision 3 to TS Task Force Improved 
Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-513, ``Revise PWR [pressurized-water 
reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage 
Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS improvement was 
announced in the Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189), as 
part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
    Date of Issuance: March 30, 2012.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--212 and Unit 2--161.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR 
31374).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012.

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

    Date of application for amendments: July 16, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated July 18, 2011, August 1, 2011, October 27, 2011, and 
March 13, 2012.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification requirements related to control room envelope 
habitability in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room 
Habitability.'' TSTF-448 was made available by the NRC on January 17, 
2007 (72 FR 2022) as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: Unit 3--248 and Unit 4--244.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 25, 2011 (76 FR 
4386). The supplements dated July 18, 2011, August 1, 2011, October 27, 
2011, and March 13, 2012, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of application for amendment: March 28, 2011, as supplemented 
by letter dated February 5, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised TS 3.8.1, 
``AC

[[Page 22820]]

[Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' to incorporate Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-163, Revision 2, 
``Minimum vs. Steady State Voltage and Frequency,'' dated April 22, 
1998. The amendments also revised the Final Safety Analysis Report 
Update (FSAR Update) to identify an exception to Revision 0 of NRC 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.9, ``Application and Testing of Safety-Related 
Diesel Generators in Nuclear Power Plants'' (issued as NRC Safety Guide 
9, ``Selection of Diesel Generator Set Capacity for Standby Power 
Supplies,'' dated March 10, 1971).
    The TS 3.8.1 surveillance requirements were revised per TSTF-163, 
Revision 2, to verify minimum frequency and voltage, and steady state 
frequency and voltage within limits following diesel generator start. 
The FSAR Update is revised to specify an exception to RG 1.9, Revision 
0, Regulatory Position C.4, for frequency recovery for the Auxiliary 
Feedwater pump loading for DGs 1-1, 1-3, 2-2, and 2-3.
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2012.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance. Implementation of the 
amendments shall also include revision of the Final Safety Analysis 
Report Update as described in the licensee's letter dated March 28, 
2011.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--211; Unit 2--213.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR 
31375). The supplemental letter dated February 5, 2012, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendment: April 29, 2011, as supplemented 
October 21, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment t: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) section 3.4.15 RCS Reactor Coolant System 
Leakage Detection Instrumentation, in accordance with the Technical 
Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-513-A, Revision 3, titled 
``Revise PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and 
Actions for RCS Leakage [detection] Instrumentation.'' Specifically, 
the proposed amendment would revise the TS 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.
    Date of Issuance: March 20, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos: Unit 1--187 and Unit 2--182.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: Amendment 
revises the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of notice in Federal Register: June 14, 2011 (76 FR 34768).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 20, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 22, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved changes to 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.3, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,'' by 
making two administrative changes to TS 5.3.1.1. Specifically, the 
changes removed the operator license applicants' education and 
experience eligibility requirements, and corrected inadvertent 
omissions in previous amendments relative to the Licensed Operators' 
and Senior Operators' qualification requirements.
    Date of issuance: April 2, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of the date of 
issuance.
    Amendment No.: 198.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment 
revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 23, 2011 (76 FR 
52705).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards 
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public 
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)

    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 for the 
amendment 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.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards

[[Page 22821]]

consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has 
been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some 
time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may 
provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been 
requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been 
consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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 Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in accessing the document, 
contact the PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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 petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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.\1\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and 
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they 
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, 
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the 
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a 
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within one of the following groups:
    1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the 
applications.
    2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the 
applications.
    3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined 
above.
    As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors 
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall 
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act 
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a 
requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of another 
sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner who seeks to 
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner shall act as the representative with respect to that 
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner a representative who shall have the authority to act for the 
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to

[[Page 22822]]

intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct 
of the hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination 
that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a 
hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the 
amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in 
effect.
    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 information (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 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 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 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 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 copyrighted 
materials in their submission.

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: February 28, as supplemented March 2 and 
March 9, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment revised the FNP

[[Page 22823]]

Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank,'' 
to permit the use of a seismically qualified boundary valve under 
administrative controls for limited periods of time.
    Date of issuance: March 24, 2012.
    Effective date: April 23, 2012.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--188 and Unit 2--183.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: Amendment 
revises the technical specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. 77 FR 14441. The notice provided an 
opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC 
determination. No comments have been received. The notice also provided 
an opportunity to request a hearing by May 8, 2012, but indicated that 
if the Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any such hearing 
would take place after issuance of the amendment.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a safety evaluation dated March 24, 2012.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch and Bingham Law 
Firm, P.O. Box 306, Birmingham, Alabama 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of April 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Allen G. Howe,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-9169 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P