[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13369-13376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4958]



[[Page 13369]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2012-0050]


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

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from January 27, 2012 to February 22, 2012. The 
last biweekly notice was published on February 21, 2012 (77 FR 9998).

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by 
searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-0050. 
You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0050. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 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.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0050 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0050.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. Documents may be viewed in 
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0050 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions 
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should 
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such 
information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.92, this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this 
proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the 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

[[Page 13370]]

accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's 
PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are 
accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC Web site at 
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 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

[[Page 13371]]

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

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

    Date of amendment request: September 16, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise specific Technical Specification (TS) requirements to support 
operation with 24-month fuel cycles, in accordance with the guidance in 
Generic Letter (GL) 91-04, ``Changes in Technical Specification 
Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel Cycle,'' dated 
April 2, 1991. In addition, the amendment would incorporate NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler 
TSTF-493, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for 
LSSS [Limiting Safety System Settings] Functions,'' to be consistent 
with Option A.
    Specifically, to accommodate a 24-month fuel cycle, the amendment 
would revise certain TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) frequencies that 
are specified as ``18 months'' to ``24 months''; the TS Allowable 
Values of two instrument functions would be revised; and, consistent 
with GL 91-04, testing frequencies would be changed from ``18 months'' 
to ``24 months'' in TS 5.5.2, ``Systems Integrity Monitoring Program,'' 
and TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 
pressure measurements would be changed from ``18 months'' to ``24 
months'' in TS 5.5.13, ``Control Room Envelope Habitability Program.''
    The proposed change to adopt TSTF-493, Revision 4, Option A, would 
revise the TSs by adding surveillance Notes with changes to setpoint 
values to the instrumentation Functions.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance 
testing intervals and certain TS Allowable Values to facilitate a 
change in the operating cycle length. The proposed TS changes do not 
physically impact the plant. The proposed TS changes do not degrade 
the performance of, or increase the challenges to, any safety 
systems assumed to function in the accident analysis. The proposed 
TS changes do not impact the usefulness of the surveillance and 
testing requirements in evaluating the operability of required 
systems and components, or the way in which the surveillances are 
performed. In addition, the frequency of surveillance testing and TS 
Allowable Values are not considered initiators of any analyzed 
accident, nor do revisions to the frequency or TS Allowable Values 
introduce any accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not 
significantly increased. The proposed changes to surveillance 
frequencies do not affect the performance of any equipment credited 
to mitigate the radiological consequences of an accident. The 
changes to the TS Allowable Values remain bounded by their 
associated analytical limits. Evaluation of the proposed TS changes 
demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is not 
significantly affected because of other more frequent testing that 
is performed, the availability of redundant systems and equipment, 
and the high reliability of the equipment. Historical review of 
surveillance test results and associated maintenance records did not 
find

[[Page 13372]]

evidence of failures that would invalidate the above conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance 
testing intervals and certain changes to TS Allowable Values to 
facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. The proposed TS 
changes do not introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type 
than those previously evaluated, since there are no physical 
configuration or design changes being made to the facility.
    No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed 
equipment is being operated in a different manner. As a result, no 
new failure modes are being introduced. Although certain instrument 
setpoints and TS Allowable Values are being revised, the way 
surveillance tests are performed remains unchanged. The TS Allowable 
Values remain bounded by their associated analytical limits. A 
historical review of surveillance test results and associated 
maintenance records indicated there was no evidence of any failures 
that would invalidate the above conclusions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident, from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance 
testing intervals and certain TS Allowable Values to facilitate a 
change in the operating cycle length. The impact of these changes on 
system availability is not significant, based on other more frequent 
testing that is performed, the existence of redundant systems and 
equipment, and overall system reliability. The revised TS Allowable 
Values remain bounded by their associated analytical limits. 
Evaluations have shown there is no evidence of time dependent 
failures that would impact the availability of the systems. The 
proposed changes do not significantly impact the condition or 
performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for 
accident mitigation. The proposed changes do not result in any 
hardware changes or in any changes to the analytical limits assumed 
in accident analyses. Existing operating margin between plant 
conditions and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced 
due to these changes. The proposed changes do not significantly 
impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
    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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 22, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
curves in Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant 
System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' to replace the 28 
Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) restriction in TS Figures 3.4.9-1, 
3.4.9-2, and 3.4.9-3 and the minimum temperature in Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.4.9.5, SR 3.4.9.6, and SR 3.4.9.7. The amendment 
would include a set of updated P/T curves for pressure test, core not 
critical, and core critical conditions for 32 EFPY based on a fluence 
evaluation performed using NRC-approved fluence methodology. The new 
curves would show a shift of minimum operating temperature which allows 
the bolt-up and minimum temperatures specified for SR 3.4.9.5, SR 
3.4.9.6, and SR 3.4.9.7 to be changed from 80 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) to 70 [deg]F.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The P/T limits are not derived from Design Basis Accident (DBA) 
analyses. They are prescribed by American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) Code Section XI, 10 CFR 50 Appendix G and H, and 
associated guidance documents such as Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision 
2, as restrictions on normal operation to avoid encountering 
pressure, temperature, and temperature rate of change conditions 
that might cause undetected flaws to propagate and cause non-ductile 
failure of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. Thus, they ensure 
that an accident precursor is not likely. Hence, they are included 
in the TS as satisfying Criterion 2 of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The 
revision of the numerical value of these limits, i.e., new curves, 
using an NRC-approved methodology, does not change the existing 
regulatory requirements, upon which the curves are based. Thus, this 
revision will not increase the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which 
the facility is operated or maintained. The proposed changes will 
not affect any other System, Structure or Component designed for the 
mitigation of previously analyzed events. The proposed changes do 
not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological 
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated. Thus, the proposed revision of 
the existing numerical values with the updated figures for the 
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) P/T limits, which are based upon an 
NRC-approved methodology for calculating the neutron fluence on the 
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) and new bolt-up limit, will not 
increase the consequences of any previously evaluated accident.
    Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the processes governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety 
analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. [Nebraska 
Public Power District (NPPD)] is only requesting to revise the 
existing numerical values and update the TS figures for the RCS P/T 
limits based upon an NRC-approved methodology for calculating the 
neutron fluence on the RPV, and to reflect a new bolt-up limit. The 
curves continue to be based upon ASME Code.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which Safety 
Limits, Limiting Safety System Settings or Limiting Conditions for 
Operation are determined. The setpoints at which protective actions 
are initiated are not altered by the proposed changes. Sufficient 
equipment remains available to actuate upon demand for the purpose 
of mitigating an analyzed event. NPPD is only requesting to revise 
the existing numerical values and update the TS figures for the RCS 
P/T limits based upon an NRC-approved methodology for calculating 
the neutron fluence, Radiation Analysis Modeling Application. The 
new curves also reflect a new bolt up limit. No changes to the other 
Limiting Conditions for Operation or SRs of TS 3.4.9 are proposed.
    In 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G specifies fracture toughness 
requirements to provide adequate margins of safety during operation

[[Page 13373]]

over the service lifetime. The values of adjusted reference 
temperature and upper-shelf energy will remain within the limits of 
Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision 2 and Appendix G of 10 CFR part 50 
for at least 32 EFPY of operation. The safety analysis supporting 
this change continues to satisfy the ASME Code, 10 CFR part 50 
Appendixes G and H requirements, and associated guidance documents 
such as Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision 2. Thus, the proposed changes 
will not significantly reduce any margin of safety that currently 
exists.
    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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 2, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to modify 
certain surveillance requirements (SRs) in the Technical Specifications 
to provide an alternative means for testing the dual function, three-
stage, Target Rock main steam safety/relief valves (S/RVs). The SRs 
affected are 3.4.3, ``Safety/Relief Valves (S/RVs),'' 3.5.1, ``ECCS 
[Emergency Core Cooling System]--Operating,'' and 3.6.1.5, ``Low-Low 
Set (LLS) Valves.'' These S/RVs provide the overpressure protection 
safety function, and also provide the automatic depressurization and 
low-low set relief function. This proposed amendment would modify the 
subject SRs by providing an alternative methodology using a series of 
overlapping tests to demonstrate the required functioning, in lieu of 
manually actuating the valves during plant startup.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC) analysis. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's 
NSHC analysis and has prepared its own as follows:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Accidents are initiated by malfunctions or failures of plant 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The proposed amendment 
only affects the manner in which the subject S/RVs are tested, and 
does not involve any design change to the subject S/RVs or other 
SSCs. The proposed alternative S/RV testing methodology provides an 
equivalent level of assurance that the S/RVs are capable of 
performing their intended safety functions. Since there will be no 
design change as a result of the proposed amendment, the S/RVs will 
continue to perform their design safety function, and there will be 
no increase in the consequences of previously evaluated accidents. 
In addition, since previously evaluated accidents were not assumed 
to be initiated by the method of testing of the S/RVs, the proposed 
amendment will cause no increase in the probability of occurrence of 
previously evaluated accidents.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not affect the design function, 
operation, or accident performance of the S/RVs, or any plant SSC 
previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not involve 
installation of any new equipment, and the existing installed 
equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. The 
changes to the SRs regarding testing methodology will ensure that 
the S/RVs remain capable of performing their design safety function. 
No setpoints will be changed which would alter the dynamic response 
of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are 
introduced.
    Therefore, the propose amendment does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment will not alter any previously used safety 
analysis methods, scenarios, acceptance criteria, or assumptions. 
The proposed amendment does not affect the valve setpoint or 
operational criteria of the S/RVs.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: January 12, 2012.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise technical specification (TS) 5.5.7 ``Reactor Coolant Pump [RCP] 
Flywheel Inspection Program.'' Specifically, the inspection interval 
would be changed from ``at least once per 10 years'' to ``at least once 
per 20 years.'' This change is consistent with Industry/Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change 
Traveler, TSTF-421-A, ``Revision to RCP Flywheel Inspection Program 
(WCAP-15666).'' The availability of this TS improvement was published 
in the Federal Register (FR) on October 22, 2003 (68 FR 60422), as part 
of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC). The licensee has stated that the model NSHC as 
published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2003 (68 FR 37590), 
applies to the current request. The model NSHC is reproduced below:

Criterion 1

    The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in 
the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
    The proposed change to the RCP flywheel examination frequency 
does not change the response of the plant to any accidents. The RCP 
will remain highly reliable and the proposed change will not result 
in a significant increase in the risk of plant operation. Given the 
extremely low failure probabilities for the RCP motor flywheel 
during normal and accident conditions, the extremely low probability 
of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with loss of offsite power 
(LOOP), and assuming a conditional core damage probability (CCDP) of 
1.0 (complete failure of safety systems), the core damage frequency 
(CDF) and change in risk would still not exceed the NRC's acceptance 
guidelines contained in RG 1.174 (<1.0E-6 per year). Moreover, 
considering the uncertainties involved in this evaluation, the risk 
associated with the postulated failure of an RCP motor flywheel is 
significantly low. Even if all four RCP motor flywheels are 
considered in the bounding plant configuration case, the risk is 
still acceptably low.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the 
facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated

[[Page 13374]]

and maintained; alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, 
components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits; or affect the source term, containment isolation, 
or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the 
radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed change does not increase the type or amount of 
radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly 
increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation 
exposure. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions and resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 2

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

Criterion 3

    The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in 
a Margin of Safety.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not impacted by this change. The proposed change will not result 
in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis. 
The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the 
acceptance criteria contained in RG 1.174. There are no significant 
mechanisms for inservice degradation of the RCP flywheel.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not 
involve a significant hazards consideration.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's assessment that the model 
NSHC applies 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. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, 
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30308-2216.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A 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 
available online 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].

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: July 22, 2011, as supplemented 
October 19, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment modifies the 
Technical Specifications (TS) by relocating specific Surveillance 
Frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the adoption of 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate 
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control-Risk Informed Technical 
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b.''
    The existing Bases information describing the basis for the 
Surveillance Frequency will be relocated to the licensee-controlled 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Additionally, the change adds a 
new program TS 5.5.15, ``Surveillance Frequency Control Program,'' to 
TS Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals.''
    The changes are consistent with NRC approved Industry/TSTF STS 
change TSTF-425, Revision 3, (Rev. 3) (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML090850642). The Federal Register notice published on July 6, 2009 (74 
FR 31996) announced the availability of this TS improvement.
    Date of issuance: February 14, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 120 days.
    Amendment No.: 301.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 15, 2011 (76 
FR 70772).
    The supplemental letter dated October 19, 2011, 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 original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 13375]]

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: June 10, 2011, as supplemented by letter 
dated July 27, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to add a new limiting condition for operation 
(LCO) Applicability requirement, LCO 3.0.9, and its associated Bases, 
relating to the modification of requirements regarding the impact of 
unavailable barriers, not explicitly addressed in the TSs, but required 
for operability of supported systems in the TSs. This change is 
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-427, 
Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non Technical Specification Barrier 
Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITY,'' using the consolidated 
line item improvement process.
    Date of issuance: February 8, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 173.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 26, 2011 (76 FR 
44616). The supplemental letter dated July 27, 2011, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 8, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352, Limerick Generating 
Station, Unit 1, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: October 12, 2011, as 
supplemented on January 13, 2012.
    Brief description of amendment: The changes revise the Technical 
Specification (TS) relating to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power 
Ratios (SLMCPRs). The changes result from a cycle-specific analysis 
performed to support the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Unit 
1, in the upcoming Cycle 15. Specifically, the TS changes will revise 
the SLMCPRs contained in TS 2.1 for two recirculation loop operation 
and single-recirculation loop operation to reflect the changes in the 
cycle-specific analysis. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission-approved methodology described in NEDE 24011-P-A, 
General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel, Revision 18.
    Date of issuance: February 17, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 206.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-39. The amendment revised the 
license and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2011 (76 FR 
76196).
    The supplement dated January 13, 2012, clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 17, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised several 
Technical Specification (TS) pages to correct formatting errors and 
typographical errors, including pages within TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod 
OPERABILITY,'' TS 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times,'' TS 3.3.1.1, 
``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.5.1, 
``Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.1, 
``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.2, 
``Secondary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.1, ``Loss 
of Power (LOP) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.2, ``Reactor Protection 
System (RPS) Electric Power Monitoring,'' TS 3.5.1, ``ECCS--
Operating,'' TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS--Shutdown,'' TS 3.6.1.1, ``Primary 
Containment,'' TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,'' TS 
3.7.4, ``Control Room Emergency Filter (CREF) System,'' TS 3.8.1, ``AC 
[Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' TS 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel 
Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' TS 5.2, ``Organization,'' and TS 
5.5, ``Programs and Manuals''. In addition, the amendment revised TS 
5.5.6, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' to remove an expired one-time 
exception of the 5-year frequency requirement for setpoint testing of 
safety valve MSRV-70ARV.
    Date of issuance: February 16, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 241.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR 
67489).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: May 2, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: This license amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.4.6.1, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] 
Leakage Detection Systems,'' to define a new time limit for restoring 
inoperable RCS leakage detection instrumentation to operable status, 
establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS leakage when monitors are 
inoperable, and to reflect the requested changes and more accurately 
reflect the contents of the facility design bases related to the 
operability of the RCS leakage detection instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: February 22, 2012.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment No.: 186.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises 
the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 12, 2011 (76 FR 
40941).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 13376]]

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: August 23, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise the facility 
operating license to delete Section 2.G.1 of the Facility Operating 
License, which requires reporting of violations of the requirements in 
Section 2, items C(1), C(3) though (33), E, F, K, and L of the Facility 
Operating License. The proposed amendment would also delete Section 6.6 
of the Technical Specifications (TSs) regarding reportable events. 
Section 6.6 of the TSs are redundant to requirements that have since 
been embodied in the regulations and, accordingly, may be deleted from 
the TS.
    Date of issuance: February 22, 2012.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance.
    Amendment No.: 185.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises 
the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 15, 2011 (76 
FR 70774).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2012.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 2012.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-4958 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P