[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80972-80980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33090]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0290]


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

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from December 1, 2011 to December 14, 2011. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 13, 2011 (76 FR 77565).
    Addresses: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0290 in the subject 
line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic 
form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking 
Web site http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be 
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC 
cautions you against including any information in your submission that 
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
    The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments 
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those 
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any 
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not 
include any information in their comments that they do not want 
publicly disclosed.
    You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.

[[Page 80973]]

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and 
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2011-0290. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher (301) 492-3668; email 
[email protected].
    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and 
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or 
by fax to RADB at (301) 492-3446.
    You can access publicly available documents related to this notice 
using the following methods:
    NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have 
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Room 
O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852.
    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): 
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain 
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of the NRC's 
public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's 
PDR reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to 
[email protected]. From this page, the public can gain entry into 
ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR 
reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to 
[email protected].
    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting 
materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2011-0290.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.92, this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this 
proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for 
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) 
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC 
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the 
NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If 
a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by 
the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the 
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; 
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to

[[Page 80974]]

intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct 
of the hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including 
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification 
(ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at http://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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at 
[email protected], 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 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With 
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve 
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include

[[Page 80975]]

copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://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 [email protected].

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2011, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 13, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
River Bend Station emergency plan to relocate its alternate Emergency 
Operations Facility (EOF) from 23 miles to 28 miles from the Technical 
Support Center (TSC).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident. The change only impacts the 
implementation of the Emergency Plan by relocating the alternate EOF 
to another facility. It has no impact on plant equipment or the 
operation of plant equipment and thus has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an event. The capabilities of the 
alternate EOF have not been revised from the current Emergency Plan. 
The proposed facility will have the capabilities to obtain and 
display plant data and radiological information to assess plant and 
radiological release conditions, perform offsite dose projections, 
make public protective action recommendations and perform offsite 
notifications to State and Local agencies.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The change only impacts the implementation of the Emergency Plan 
by relocating the alternate EOF. The change does not impact any 
plant equipment or systems needed to respond to an accident, nor 
does it involve any analysis of plant accidents. The proposed change 
does not create a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated because this change only impacts the location 
of the Alternate EOF.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The change to the Emergency Plan does not reduce the margin of 
safety currently provided by the Plan as it maintains the 
capabilities of the current alternate EOF. Offsite dose 
calculations, offsite notifications to state and local agencies, and 
public protective action recommendations will continue to be 
performed by alternate EOF personnel. Therefore, the proposed 
changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: October 18, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change the Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.3.3, Table 3.3-1, to 
revise the existing requirement for two channels of the Containment 
Water Level (Containment Sump) function and two channels of the 
Containment Sump Water Level (Recirculation Sump) function to two 
Containment Water Level channels. This is consistent with the Standard 
Technical Specification NUREG 1431.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will revise the requirements for water level 
monitors from 4 to 2. These level indicators are provided for 
monitoring the post-accident water level in the bottom of the 
containment to aid operator action to initiate recirculation and to 
assess the potential for excessive level. The presence or absence of 
these instruments has no bearing on accident precursor conditions or 
events. The proposed requirement will maintain redundancy and, 
utilizing the RWST [Refueling Water Storage Tank] level indication, 
diversity to continue to provide information to the plant operators 
to monitor and manage accident conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will revise the requirements for water level 
monitors from four to two. The change reduces the number of channels 
required but retains redundancy and, coupled with the RWST level 
indication, diversity of indication. The Technical Specification 
does not require the instruments for normal plant operations and 
does not affect how the plant is operated. The removal of the two 
indicators does not create the possibility of any equipment failure 
or effect on other equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will revise the required number of water 
level monitors. The revised requirement will remain consistent with 
the requirements found in the Standard Technical Specification for 
level monitors provided for monitoring the post-accident water 
level. The level monitors no longer required by the TS will continue 
to serve as backup instrumentation for the instruments on the same 
power supply as long as they continue to meet surveillance 
requirements. Other instrument channels will remain in service and 
provide diverse indication for operator response and to support 
existing accident mitigation strategies. The proposed change does 
not involve changes to existing setpoints for automatic or operator 
actions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 80976]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 and 3 [IP2 and IP3], Westchester 
County, New York

    Date of amendment request: September 16, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete the references to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI and incorporates 
references to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 
Power Plants (ASME OM Code) and indicates that the allowance for a 25% 
extension of surveillance intervals may be applied to accelerated 
frequencies utilized in the inservice testing program.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises [IP2], TS [Technical Specification] 
5.5.6 and [IP3], TS 5.5.7, Inservice Testing Program, for 
consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps 
and valves which are classified as American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. The proposed 
change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that result in a net 
improvement in the measures for testing pumps and valves.
    The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators or 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events. The proposed change does not involve the addition or removal 
of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility.
    Therefore, this proposed change does not represent a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises [P2], TS 5.5.6 and [IP3], TS 5.5.7, 
Inservice Testing Program, for consistency with the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are classified as 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 
2 and Class 3. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the 
ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for 
testing pumps and valves.
    The proposed change does not involve a modification to the 
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be 
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different 
requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident 
precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no 
change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that 
may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or 
cumulative occupational exposure.
    Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility 
of an accident of a different kind than previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises [IP2], TS 5.5.6 and [IP3], TS 5.5.7, 
Inservice Testing Program, for consistency with the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are classified as 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 
2 and Class 3. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the 
ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for 
testing pumps and valves. The safety function of the affected pumps 
and valves are maintained.
    Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
Technical Specification 3.3.3.5, ``Remote Shutdown System Table 3.3-
9,'' by removing the location information of transfer switches, control 
circuits and instruments.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, which is presented below 
with NRC edits in brackets:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change does not impact the physical function of 
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in 
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed change 
neither adversely affects accident initiators or precursors, nor 
alters design assumptions. The proposed change does not alter or 
prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended 
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within 
assumed acceptance limits.
    The proposed change would remove the specific location 
information listed in Technical Specification 3.3.3.5, Remote 
Shutdown Systems; Table 3.3-9 for transfer switches/control circuits 
and instruments. The requirements in this Technical Specification 
would not change with the removal of the location information and 
the location information does not meet any of the criteria in 10 CFR 
50.36c(2)(ii) for items that must be retained in the Technical 
Specifications. Removing the location information will have no 
adverse effect on plant operation, the availability or operation of 
any accident mitigation equipment, or plant response to a design 
basis accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will not impact the accident analysis. The 
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a significant 
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. 
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident. The change does not alter assumptions made 
in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed change[ does] not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change does not 
involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident 
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes.

[[Page 80977]]

    Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria 
used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system 
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition.
    Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves NSHC.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, (NMPNS) Docket Nos. 50-220 and 
50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 and 2 (NMP 1 and 2), 
Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: July 20, 2011, as supplemented on 
November 3, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the NMP1 Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.1, ``Site,'' and 
associated TS Figure 5.1-1, ``Site Boundaries, Nine Mile Point--Unit 
1,'' and the NMP2 TS Figure 4.1-1, ``Site Area and Land Portion of 
Exclusion Area Boundaries,'' to reflect the transfer of a portion of 
the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS) site real property 
located outside of the NMPNS Protected Area but within the current 
NMPNS Owner Controlled Area, as well as specified easements over the 
remainder of the NMPNS site, to Nine Mile Point 3 Nuclear Project, LLC 
(NMP3), a subsidiary of UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed [change] involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments are intended only to reflect the 
transfer of a portion of the NMPNS site real property to NMP3, 
relocate certain design details from the TS to the NMP1 and NMP2 
safety analysis reports, and make other changes that are 
administrative in nature. No physical or operational changes to the 
facility will result from the proposed amendments, and the exclusion 
area boundary and low population zone will not be altered. The 
proposed amendments do not modify the design assumptions for systems 
or components used to mitigate the consequences of accidents, and 
the initial conditions and methodologies used in the NMP1 and NMP2 
accident analyses remain unchanged.
    2. Does the proposed [change] create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments do not involve a physical alteration of 
the plants (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The safety 
functions of NMP1 and NMP2 structures, systems, or components are 
not changed in any manner, and the reliability of structures, 
systems, or components is not reduced. Thus, no new failure modes or 
potential accident initiators are introduced.
    3. Does the proposed [change] involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    No physical or operational changes to NMP1 and NMP2 will result 
from the proposed amendments, and the exclusion area boundary and 
low population zone will not be altered. The proposed amendments do 
not affect any safety limits, setpoints, or safety analysis 
assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel, 
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite 
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: September 29, 2011 (TS-SQN-2011-05).
    Description of amendment request: During Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 
(SQN), Unit 2, fall 2012 refueling outage (RFO), the replacement steam 
generators will be installed. To support this activity, heavy load 
lifts will be conducted. The proposed amendment would add a one-time 
license condition to the SQN, Unit 1 operating license for the conduct 
of heavy load lifts for the SQN, Unit 2 steam generator replacement 
project (SGRP). The one-time license condition establishes special 
provisions and requirements for the safe operation of SQN, Unit 1, 
while large heavy load lifts are performed on SQN, Unit 2. In addition, 
a one-time change to SQN, Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.7.5, 
``Ultimate Heat Sink,'' is also proposed to implement additional 
restrictions with respect to maximum average essential raw cooling 
water (ERCW) system supply header water temperature during large heavy 
load lifts performed to support the SQN, Unit 2 SGRP during fall 2012 
RFO.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No changes in event classification as discussed in SQN Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15, ``Accident Analyses,'' will 
occur due to the proposed one-time change to support the conduct of 
large heavy load lifts associated with the SQN, Unit 2, steam 
generator replacement project.
    Accidents previously evaluated that are relevant to this 
determination are related to plant external events and load 
handling. The probability of an occurrence of a seismic event is 
determined by regional geologic conditions and has not changed. 
Weather related events are determined by regional meteorological 
conditions and the probability of occurrence of severe weather 
events has not changed.
    The consequences of an earthquake have not changed. A seismic 
evaluation performed to support the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator 
replacement activities has determined that the Outside Lift System 
(OLS) would not collapse or result in a drop of the load during a 
seismic design basis Safe Shutdown Earthquake event for the lift 
configurations to be used during the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator 
replacement project. Similar qualification is demonstrated for the 
mobile crane, which will be used for handling smaller loads during 
the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator replacement project.
    The consequences of a tornado or high winds have not changed. A 
lift will not commence if analysis of weather data for the expected 
duration of the lift indicates the potential for wind conditions in 
excess of the maximum operating wind speed. Rigging operations will 
not be performed when wind speeds exceed the maximum operating wind 
speed for the OLS. If wind speeds increase during a rigging 
operation such that the wind speed may exceed the maximum operating 
speed, rigging operations will be suspended

[[Page 80978]]

and the unloaded OLS will be secured by implementing administrative 
controls specified by the manufacturer. Further, should there be an 
unexpected detrimental change in weather while the OLS is loaded, 
the lift will be completed and the OLS will be placed in its optimum 
safe configuration or the load will be grounded and the crane will 
be placed in a safe configuration. Similar qualification and 
administrative controls are also applied to the mobile crane used 
for handling smaller loads during the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator 
replacement project.
    An old steam generator (OSG) drop has been postulated to occur 
to address the radiological consequences associated with the drop. 
The dose analysis demonstrated that the OSG drop accident 
consequences remain below applicable regulatory limits and are 
bounded by similar, previously evaluated accidents at SQN.
    In addition, the proposed change establishes requirements to 
ensure that the ERCW System remains capable of supporting the 
continued operation and safe shutdown of SQN, Unit 1, and remains 
capable of maintaining the required cooling water flow to essential 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) following a potential 
large heavy load drop. As such, the ERCW System will remain capable 
of performing its required safety function to support equipment 
credited in the mitigation of consequences of design basis events.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Three postulated scenarios related to heavy load handling during 
the SQN, Unit 2, steam generator replacement activities were 
examined for their potential to represent a new or different kind of 
accident from those previously evaluated: 1) a breach of an OSG, 
resulting in the release of contained radioactive material, 2) 
flooding in the Auxiliary Building caused by the failure of piping 
in the ERCW tunnel, and 3) loss of ERCW to support safe shutdown of 
the operating Unit (SQN, Unit 1) and the continued supply of cooling 
water from the ERCW System to essential SSCs.
    Failure of an OSG that results in a breach of the primary side 
of the steam generator could potentially result in a release of a 
contained source outside containment. The consequences of this 
event, both offsite and in the control room, were examined and were 
found to be within the consequences of the failure of other 
contained sources outside containment at the SQN site.
    To preclude flooding of the Auxiliary Building due to a large 
heavy load drop, a temporary wall will be installed in the pipe 
tunnel near the Auxiliary Building interface. Thus, the postulated 
flooding of the ERCW tunnel will not result in flooding of the 
Auxiliary Building beyond those events previously evaluated.
    The potential for a large heavy load drop to cause loss of ERCW 
supply to SQN, Unit 1, and other essential SSCs is considered an 
unlikely accident for the following reasons.
     The lifting equipment was specifically chosen for the 
subject heavy lifts,
     Crane operators will be specially trained in the 
operation of the lift equipment and in the SQN site conditions,
     Qualifying analyses and administrative controls will be 
used to protect the lifts from the effects of external events, and
     The areas over which a load drop could cause loss of 
ERCW are a small part of the total travel path of the loads.
    In addition, protection against the potential for loss of ERCW 
is established by the proposed License Condition requirements and 
proposed Technical Specifications requirements. These requirements 
ensure that that ERCW System remains capable of supporting the 
continued operation and safe shutdown of SQN, Unit 1, and remains 
capable of maintaining the required cooling water flow to essential 
SSCs following a potential large heavy load drop.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the SQN, Unit 1, Operating License and 
Technical Specifications supports safe operation and safe shutdown 
capabilities of SQN, Unit 1, during replacement of the SQN, Unit 2, 
steam generators. These proposed requirements do not result in 
changes in the design basis for SSCs and do not change the minimum 
amount of operating equipment credited in the safety analyses for 
accident or transient mitigation. The proposed change does not alter 
the assumptions contained in the safety analyses. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The proposed change does not impact the safety analysis-
credited redundancy or availability of SSCs required for accident or 
transient mitigation, or the ability of the unit to cope with design 
basis events as assumed in safety analyses. Consequently, the 
proposed change will not affect any margins of safety for SSCs.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: December 10, 2010, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 16 and October 27, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would add a new Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.6 to Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.3.8, ``Emergency Exhaust System (EES) Actuation 
Instrumentation.'' The new SR would require the performance of response 
time testing on the portion of the EES required to isolate the normal 
fuel building ventilation exhaust flow path and initiate the fuel 
building ventilation isolation signal (FBVIS) mode of operation. The 
proposed amendment also would revise TS Table 3.3.8-1 to indicate that 
new SR 3.3.8.6 applies to automatic actuation Function 2, ``Automatic 
Actuation Logic and Actuation Relays (BOP ESFAS),'' and Function 3, 
``Fuel Building Exhaust Radiation--Gaseous.'' In addition, the 
specified frequency of new SR 3.3.8.6 would be relocated and controlled 
in accordance with the licensee's Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program in accordance with guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 
04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-
Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies.'' Finally, 
there would be corresponding changes to the Final Safety Analysis 
Report (FSAR).
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
November 29, 2011 (76 FR 73733).

[[Page 80979]]

    Expiration dates of individual notice: Comments: December 29, 2011; 
Hearings: January 30, 2012.
    Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see: (1) The 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://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 [email protected].

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: April 4, 2011, as supplemented 
by letter dated August 15, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit for restoring 
inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection 
instrumentation to operable status; establish alternate methods of 
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are 
inoperable and make conforming TS Bases changes, which reflect the 
proposed changes; and more accurately reflect the contents of the 
facility design basis related to operability of the RCS leakage 
detection instrumentation. These changes are consistent with the NRC-
approved Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-514, ``Revise BWR 
[Boiling-Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS 
Leakage Instrumentation.''
    Date of issuance: December 7, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 204/191.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR 
28473).
    The August 15, 2011, supplement provided additional information 
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the 
application as originally noticed and did not change the NRC staff's 
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 7, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS), Ottawa County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendment: April 29, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the DBNPS 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``[Reactor Coolant System] RCS 
Leakage Detection Instrumentation'' to define a new time limit for 
restoring inoperable RCS leakage detection instrumentation to operable 
status and establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS leakage when 
one or more required monitors are inoperable.
    The amendment also makes TS Bases changes, which reflect the 
proposed TS changes, and more accurately reflect the contents of the 
facility design basis related to operability of the RCS leakage 
detection instrumentation.
    The amendment is consistent with the guidance contained in Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-513, Revision 3, ``Revise 
[Pressurized-Water Reactor] PWR Operability Requirements and Actions 
for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.'' TSTF-513, Revision 3, was made 
available by the NRC on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189) as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process.
    Date of issuance: December 9, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 284.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 12, 2011 (76 FR 
40940).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 9, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: March 30, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the NMP2 
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.7, ``RCS Leakage Detection 
Instrumentation,'' to define a new time limit for restoring inoperable 
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection instrumentation to 
operable status and establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS 
leakage when required monitors are inoperable. These changes are 
consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification 
Change Traveler TSTF-514, Revision 3, ``Revise BWR Operability 
Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.''
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2011.

[[Page 80980]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
90 days.
    Amendment No.: 139.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-069: The amendment 
revises the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (76 FR 
37849).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota

    Date of application for amendments: February 4, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments make administrative 
changes to TSs 5.2.1 and 5.3 that: (1) Allow certain requirements of 
onsite and offsite organizations to be documented in the Quality 
Assurance Topical Report (QATR); and (2) remove reference to specific 
education and experience requirements for operator license applicants.
    Date of issuance: December 1, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 205 and 192.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 22, 2011 (76 FR 
16008).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of December 2011.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-33090 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P