[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1514-1521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-124]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0303]


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 15, 2011 to December 28, 2011. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80972).
    Addresses: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0303 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.
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0303. 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-2011-0303.

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

[[Page 1515]]

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 20874. The 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 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 [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

[[Page 1516]]

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 
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 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's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-
4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to [email protected].

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: August 22, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.6, ``Core Operating Limits 
Report,'' to add plant-specific methodology, ANP-3011 (P), ``Harris 
Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Realistic Large Break LOCA [Loss-of-Coolant 
Accident] Analysis,'' Revision 1, that implements AREVA's NRC-approved 
topical report, EMF-2103(P)(A), ``Realistic Large Break LOCA 
Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors,'' and add EMF-2103(P)(A), 
``Realistic Large Break LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water 
Reactors,'' Revision 2 or higher upon approval of the specific revision 
by the NRC, to the TS 6.9.1.6.2 listing of analytical methods used to 
determine the core operating limits, and eliminates extraneous detail 
in TS 6.9.1.6 that cross references each method to the applicable TS 
Section 3.0 specifications and parameters.
    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 TR [topical report] underlying the proposed HNP [Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant] methodology has been reviewed and 
approved by the NRC for use in determining core operating limits and 
for evaluation of LBLOCA [large break loss-of-coolant accident]. The 
core operating limits to be developed using the new methodologies 
for HNP will be established in accordance with the applicable 
limitations as documented in the NRC SE [safety evaluation]. In the 
April 9, 2003, NRC SE, the NRC concluded that the S-RELAP5 RLBLOCA 
[realistic large break loss-of-coolant accident] methodology is 
acceptable for referencing in licensing applications in accordance 
with the stated limitations.
    The proposed change enables the use of new methodology to re-
analyze a LBLOCA. It does not, by itself, impact the current design 
bases. Revised analysis may either result in continued conformance 
with design bases or may change the design bases. If design basis 
changes result from a revised analysis, the specific design changes 
will be evaluated in accordance with HNP design change procedures 
and 10 CFR 50.59.
    The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any 
plant structure, system, or component (SSC). Therefore, the 
probability of occurrence for a previously analyzed accident is not 
significantly increased.
    The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent 
on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of 
the fission product barriers during the analyzed accident, the 
availability and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to 
operate in response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at 
which these actions are initiated.

[[Page 1517]]

    The proposed methodologies will ensure that the plant continues 
to meet applicable design and safety analyses acceptance criteria. 
The proposed change does not affect the performance of any equipment 
used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. As a 
result, no analysis assumptions are impacted and there are no 
adverse effects on the factors that contribute to offsite or onsite 
dose as a result of an accident. The proposed change does not affect 
setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. The 
proposed change ensures that plant SSCs are maintained consistent 
with the safety analysis and licensing bases.
    Therefore, this amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed 
accident.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of 
plant SSCs. No new or different equipment is being installed and no 
installed equipment is being operated in a different manner. There 
is no change to the parameters within which the plant is normally 
operated or in the setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative 
actions. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced.
    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.
    There is no impact on any margin of safety resulting from the 
incorporation of this new TR into the TS or deletion of cross-
reference information from the description of the COLR [core 
operating limit report]. If design basis changes result from a 
revised analysis that uses these new methodologies, the specific 
design changes will be evaluated in accordance with HNP design 
change procedures and 10 CFR 50.59. Any potential reduction in the 
margin of safety would be evaluated for that specific design change.
    Therefore, this amendment 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 
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.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: October 28, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.2.B to increase the 
condensate storage tank low water level setpoint for the interlock to 
high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI) pump suction valves. The 
proposed amendment would also correct typographical errors in TS 
numbering and referencing that were introduced in previous license 
amendment requests.
    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 increasing of the setpoint for the Condensate Storage Tank 
(CST) low water level High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) System 
automatic suction transfer to the Suppression Pool is not a 
precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The CST is not 
utilized to mitigate the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated. The increase in the setpoint provides for HPCI pump 
performance with the required flow to mitigate the accident 
conditions. The proposed corrections to typographical errors 
incurred in the prior License Amendments provide correct references 
to the applicable existing Specifications, which is an 
administrative change.
    The proposed changes do not involve a change to the safety 
function of the HPCI system operation. The proposed TS revision 
involves no significant changes to the operation of any systems or 
components in normal or accident operating conditions.
    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.
    The increasing of the setpoint for the Condensate Storage Tank 
(CST) low water level High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) System 
automatic suction transfer to the Suppression Pool is not a 
precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The CST is not 
utilized to mitigate the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated. The increase in the setpoint provides for HPCI pump 
performance with the required flow to mitigate the accident 
conditions. The proposed corrections to typographical errors 
incurred in the prior License Amendments provide correct references 
to the applicable existing Specifications, which is an 
administrative change.
    The proposed changes do not change the safety function of the 
HPCI and RCIC [reactor core isolation cooling] systems. There is no 
alteration to the parameters within which the plant is normally 
operated. The increase in the setpoint is not a precursor to new or 
different kinds of accidents and do not initiate new or different 
kinds of accidents. The impact of these changes have been analyzed 
and found to be acceptable within the design limits and plant 
operating procedures. As a result, no new failure modes are being 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within 
which the plant is operated and the establishment of the setpoints 
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event 
and design basis accidents. The proposed change increases the 
setpoint at which protective actions are initiated, but does not 
change the requirements governing operation or availability of 
safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of 
safety. The corrections to the typographical errors introduced in 
prior License Amendments do not impact the safety margin.
    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 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: Nancy Salgado.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 26, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises 
license condition 2.C.(32) to require the installation of NETCO-SNAP-
IN[supreg] inserts to be completed no later than December 31, 2012, for 
LaSalle County Station (LSCS) Unit 2. In addition, license condition 
2.C.(31) is revised to apply until March 31, 2012, and a new license 
condition 2.C.(34) is being

[[Page 1518]]

proposed to prohibit fuel storage after March 31, 2012, in spent fuel 
pool (SFP) storage rack cells that have not been upgraded with the 
NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts.
    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 revises the LSCS Unit 2 Operating License to 
accelerate the timeline for installation of the NETCO-SNAP-
IN[supreg] inserts in the LSCS Unit 2 SFP, and limit the time period 
under which BORAFLEX\TM\ is credited as the neutron absorbing 
material in the Unit 2 SFP. There are no changes to the SFP 
criticality analysis associated with the proposed change. The SFP 
criticality analysis was previously approved by the NRC and 
continues to demonstrate that the effective neutron multiplication 
factor, Keff, is less than or equal to 0.95 if the SFP is fully 
flooded with unborated water. No physical changes to the plant are 
proposed, no new plant equipment is being installed, and there are 
no changes to the manner in which the plant is operated. Rather, the 
proposed change is administrative because it involves accelerating 
the timeline for installing the NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts and 
limiting the time period under which BORAFLEX\TM\ is credited as the 
neutron absorbing material in the Unit 2 SFP.
    The probability that a fuel assembly would be dropped is 
unchanged by the proposed change. These events involve failures of 
administrative controls, human performance, and equipment failures 
that are unaffected by the proposed change. The proposed change does 
not result in a significant increase in the consequence of an 
accident previously analyzed. The criticality analysis that 
demonstrates adequate margin to criticality for spent fuel storage 
rack cells with rack inserts in the LSCS Unit 2 SFP, and adequate 
criticality margin for assemblies accidentally dropped onto the 
spent fuel storage racks, is not being changed. The consequences of 
dropping a fuel assembly onto any other fuel assembly or other 
structure are unaffected by the proposed change.
    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.
    The proposed change revises the LSCS Unit 2 Operating License to 
accelerate the timeline for installation of the NETCO-SNAP-
IN[supreg] inserts in the LSCS Unit 2 SFP, and limit the time period 
under which BORAFLEX\TM\ is credited as the neutron absorbing 
material in the Unit 2 SFP. There are no changes to the SFP 
criticality analysis associated with the proposed change. No 
physical changes to the plant are proposed, and there are no changes 
to the manner in which the plant is operated. Rather, the proposed 
change is administrative because it involves accelerating the 
timeline for installing the NETCO-SNAP-IN[supreg] inserts and 
limiting the time period under which BORAFLEX\TM\ is credited as the 
neutron absorbing material in the Unit 2 SFP.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the LSCS Unit 2 Operating License to 
accelerate the timeline for installation of the NETCO-SNAP-
IN[supreg] inserts in the LSCS Unit 2 SFP, and limit the time period 
under which BORAFLEX\TM\ is credited as the neutron absorbing 
material in the Unit 2 SFP. Plant safety margins are established 
through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system 
settings, and safety limits specified in Technical Specifications. 
The proposed change does not alter these established safety margins. 
For SFP criticality, the required safety margin is 5% including a 
conservative margin to account for engineering and manufacturing 
uncertainties. The proposed change does not alter the criticality 
analysis for the SFP and does not affect the SFP criticality safety 
margin.

    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 27, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow the BVPS-1 containment 
spray additive, sodium hydroxide (NaOH), to be replaced by sodium 
tetraborate (NaTB). Also, an administrative change to the BVPS-2 
license is required.
    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.
    Use of NaTB in lieu of NaOH would not involve a significant 
increase in probability of a previously evaluated accident because 
the containment spray additive is not an initiator of any analyzed 
accident. The NaTB would be stored and delivered by a passive method 
that does not have potential to affect plant operations. Any 
existing NaOH delivery system equipment which remains in place but 
is removed from service would meet existing seismic and electrical 
requirements. Therefore the change in additive, including removal of 
NaOH equipment from service, would not result in any failure modes 
that could initiate an accident.
    The spray additive is used to mitigate the consequences of a 
LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. Use of NaTB as an additive in lieu 
of NaOH would not involve a significant increase in the consequences 
of a previously evaluated accident because the amount of NaTB 
specified in the proposed TS would achieve a pH of 7 or greater, 
consistent with the current licensing basis. This pH is sufficient 
to achieve long-term retention of iodine by the containment sump 
fluid for the purpose of reducing accident related radiation dose 
following a LOCA.
    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.
    Regarding the proposed use of NaTB in lieu of NaOH, the NaTB 
would be stored and delivered by a passive method that does not have 
potential to affect plant operations. Any existing NaOH delivery 
system equipment that is removed from service would meet existing 
seismic and electrical requirements. Hydrogen generation would not 
be significantly impacted by the change.
    Therefore, no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators would be introduced by the proposed change, and it would 
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.
    Since the quantity of NaTB specified in the amended TS would 
reduce the potential for undesirable chemical effects while 
achieving radiation dose reductions, corrosion control and hydrogen 
generation effects that are comparable to NaOH, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The 
primary function of an additive is to reduce LOCA consequences by

[[Page 1519]]

controlling the amount of iodine fission products released to 
containment atmosphere from reactor coolant accumulating in the sump 
during a LOCA. Because the amended [TS] would achieve a pH of 7 or 
greater using NaTB, dose related safety margins would not be 
significantly reduced. Use of NaTB reduces the potential for 
undesirable chemical effects that could interfere with recirculation 
flow through the sump strainers. Any existing NaOH delivery system 
equipment that remains in place but is removed from service would 
meet existing seismic and electrical requirements and would not 
interfere with operation of the existing containment or containment 
spray system.
    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 W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    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 
the applicability of the figures in the Technical Specifications for 
the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure-temperature limits and the 
cold overpressure protection setpoints. The proposed change revises the 
applicability of the figures from 20 effective full-power years (EFPY) 
to 23.7 EFPY.
    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:

    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 change does not affect the integrity 
of the RCS pressure boundary. The proposed change to the 
applicability of the RCS pressure-temperature limits and the cold 
overpressure protection setpoints continues to protect the integrity 
of the RCS pressure boundary.
    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, which revises the applicability of the RCS 
pressure-temperature limits and the cold overpressure protection 
setpoints, 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 RCS pressure-temperature limits and the cold 
overpressure protection setpoints are not accident initiators. 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 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 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. The proposed change to the applicability of the RCS 
pressure-temperature limits and the cold overpressure protection 
setpoints continues to protect the integrity of the RCS pressure 
boundary.
    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.

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 
NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by 
email to [email protected].

[[Page 1520]]

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of application for amendment: March 31, 2011, as supplemented 
by letter dated August 12, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments relocated certain 
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program (the 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program) in accordance with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate 
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF (Risk Informed 
Technical Specification Task Force) Initiative 5b.'' The amendments 
also approved two deviations from TSTF-425, Revision 3: an 
administrative change which would allow it to retain a definition that 
also appears in a portion of the plants' technical specifications that 
are not subject to TSTF-425, and TS Bases changes recommended by the 
NRC to the TSTF in a letter dated April 14, 2010.
    Date of issuance: December 15, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--188; Unit 2--188; Unit 3--188.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The 
amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 14, 2011 (76 FR 
34765). The supplemental letter dated August 12, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 15, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: July 12, 2011.
    Brief Description of amendments: The license amendments revised 
Brunswick Steam and Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.5, ``RCS Leakage Detection Instrumentation,'' 
consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-514, 
``Revise BWR [Boiling Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and 
Actions for RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Instrumentation,'' 
Revision 3. The availability of this TS improvement was announced in 
the Federal Register on December 17, 2010 (75 FR 79048) as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process.
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2011.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, shall be implemented within 60 
days of the effective date.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--260 and Unit 2--288.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments 
revised the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 6, 2011 (76 
FR 55127).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated December 21, 2011.
    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 amendment: April 6, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments modify the actions 
to be taken when the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity 
monitoring system and the primary containment pressure and temperature 
monitoring system are the only operable reactor coolant leakage 
detection monitoring systems. The modified actions require additional, 
more frequent monitoring of other indications of Reactor Coolant System 
(RCS) leakage and provide appropriate time to restore another 
monitoring system to operable status. This change is consistent with 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved safety evaluation on 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-514-A, 
Revision 3, ``Revised [Boiling Water Reactor] BWR Operability 
Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation,'' dated 
November 24, 2010.
    Date of issuance: December 19, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 205 and 167.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. These amendments 
revised the license and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 9, 2011 (76 FR 
48911).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2011.
    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: Harold K. Chernoff.

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

    Date of application for amendment: December 20, 2010, as 
supplemented by letters dated July 20, September 1, and October 5, 
2011. The July 20, 2011, submittal entirely replaced the licensee's 
submittal dated December 20, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: Florida Power Corporation (the 
licensee) will be constructing and operating an onsite independent 
spent fuel storage installation, under its general license, in order to 
maintain full-core offload capacity in the spent fuel pools located in 
the CR-3 auxiliary building (AB). In support of future dry shielded 
canister/transfer cask loading operation, the licensee is replacing the 
AB overhead crane. This amendment approved departure from a method for 
evaluating the replaced AB overhead crane, revisions to the CR-3 Final 
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and changes to the associated 
commitments in the FSAR.
    Date of issuance: December 27, 2011.
    Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 180 
days. The FSAR changes shall be implemented in the next periodic update 
made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).
    Amendment No.: 239.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment approved revisions 
to the FSAR Sections 5.1.1.1.h, 9.6.1.5.a.5, and 9.6.3.1 as indicated 
in the NRC's safety evaluation dated December 27, 2011.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 6, 2011 (76 
FR 55129). The supplements dated September 1 and October 5, 2011,

[[Page 1521]]

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.
    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: May 27, 2009, as supplemented on 
August 28, 2009, December 23, 2009, February 19, 2010, April 16, 2010, 
May 7, 2010, June 3, 2010, June 30, 2010, July 9, 2010, July 30, 2010, 
September 16, 2010, October 8, 2010, October 28, 2010, November 5, 
2010, December 10, 2010, December 13, 2010, January 19, 2011, January 
31, 2011, February 4, 2011, March 23, 2011, May 9, 2011, June 13, 2011, 
July 15, 2011, August 5, 2011, August 19, 2011, September 23, 2011, 
October 27, 2011, and November 1, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the NMP2 
Technical Specifications to increase the maximum steady-state reactor 
core power level from 3,467 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,988 MWt, which 
is an increase from the current license of approximately 15 percent. 
The proposed increase in power level is considered an extended power 
uprate.
    Date of issuance: December 22, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
90 days.
    Amendment No.: 140.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: The amendment 
revises the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2009 (74 FR 
53778). The supplemental letters dated August 28, 2009, December 23, 
2009, February 19, 2010, April 16, 2010, May 7, 2010, June 3, 2010, 
June 30, 2010, July 9, 2010, July 30, 2010, September 16, 2010, October 
8, 2010, October 28, 2010, November 5, 2010, December 10, 2010, 
December 13, 2010, January 19, 2011, January 31, 2011, February 4, 
2011, March 23, 2011, May 9, 2011, June 13, 2011, July 15, 2011, August 
5, 2011, August 19, 2011, September 23, 2011, October 27, 2011, and 
November 1, 2011, provided additional information that clarified the 
application and did not expand the scope of the application as 
originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission staff's initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of December 2011.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-124 Filed 1-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P