[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43374-43382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17869]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0174]
Biweekly Notice, Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
Background
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or
combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission
that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from June 28, 2012 to July 11, 2012. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40647).
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available,
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0174. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0174. 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-2012-0174 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 are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0174.
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-2012-0174 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
[[Page 43375]]
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.92, this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC
Library on the NRC's Web site at 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
[[Page 43376]]
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 NRC'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's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at 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's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC'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's 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
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].
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: January 9, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change the format of the Operating License (OL) and Technical
Specifications (TS) resulting from a change in the word processing
programs and the adoption of TSTF-GG-05-01, ``Writer's Guide for Plant-
Specific Improved Technical Specification,'' Revision 1. In addition to
these administrative changes, the licensee
[[Page 43377]]
proposed editorial changes that do not result in changes to the
technical or operating requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Columbia TS have been reformatted to conform to TSTF-GG-05-
01 and the TS and OL have been converted to a different word
processing program. The impacts of these administrative changes are
discussed in Section 2.0 [of the ``Description and Evaluation of the
Proposed TS Changes'' section] and do not affect how plant equipment
is operated or maintained. The specific proposed editorial changes
are also detailed in Section 2.0 and do not impact the intent or
substance of the OL or TS. There are no changes to the physical
plant or analytical methods.
The proposed amendment involves administrative and editorial
changes only. The proposed amendment does not impact any accident
initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events. The proposed changes do not involve the addition
or removal of any equipment or any design changes to the facility.
The proposed changes do not affect any plant operations, design
functions, or analyses that verify the capability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform a design function. The
proposed changes do not change any of the accidents previously
evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. The proposed
changes do not affect SSCs, operating procedures, and administrative
controls that have the function of preventing or mitigating any of
these accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent 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 amendment only involves administrative and
editorial changes. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses
will be affected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will
not change the design function or operation of any SSCs. The
proposed changes will not result in any new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design
and licensing bases. The proposed amendment does not impact any
accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events.
Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility
of an accident of a new or different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only involves administrative and
editorial changes. The proposed change does not involve any physical
changes to the plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 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 affected by this
change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Therefore, 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No. 50-
440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP), Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: February 22, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify PNPP's Technical Specifications (TS) 3.10.1, and the associated
TS Bases, to expand its scope to include provisions for temperature
excursions greater than 200 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) as a
consequence of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a
consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an
inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational
conditions to be in Mode 4. This change is consistent with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Revision 0 to Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard TS Change Traveler,
TSTF-484, ``Use of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time Testing Activities.''
The NRC issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model Application on
Technical Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding
LCO [Limited Conditions of Operation] 3.10.1, Inservice Leak and
Hydrostatic Testing Operation Using Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Process,'' associated with TSTF-484, in the Federal Register on October
27, 2006 (71 FR 63050). The NRC also issued a Federal Register notice
on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48561), that provided a model safety
evaluation and a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination related to the modification of requirements regarding LCO
3.10.1, ``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation.'' In its
application dated February 22, 2012, the licensee affirmed the
applicability of the model NSHC determination.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (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.
Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at
greater than 200 [deg]F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in
addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be
met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not
adversely impact the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at
greater than 212 [deg]F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in
addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be
met. No new operational conditions beyond those currently allowed by
LCO 3.10.1 are introduced. These changes do not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The
changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The
proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions
and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
[[Page 43378]]
Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at
greater than 212 [deg]F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in
addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be
met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not
adversely impact any margin of safety. Allowing completion of
inspections and testing and supporting completion of scram time
testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or
hydrostatic test prior to power operation results in enhanced safe
operations by eliminating unnecessary maneuvers to control reactor
temperature and pressure.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in any reduction
in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, FENOC concludes that the proposed change
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop. A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: May 14, 2010, as supplemented August 24,
2010, September 16, 2011, March 15, 2012, and July 2, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The license amendment request was
originally noticed in the Federal Register on July 13, 2010 (75 FR
39979). This license amendment request was re-noticed in the Federal
Register on April 17, 2012 (77 FR 22815). This notice is being reissued
in its entirety to include a revised description of the amendment
request. The proposed changes would revise the Seabrook Station
Technical Specifications (TSs) governing the Containment Enclosure
Emergency Air Cleanup System (CEEACS). The proposed amendment would
change TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.5.1.d.4 so that it will
demonstrate integrity of the containment enclosure building rather than
operability of CEEACS. The proposed amendment relocates SR 4.6.5.1.d.4
with modifications to new SR 4.6.5.2.b. The proposed amendment adds a
Note and Actions to TS 3.6.5.2. Additionally, the proposed amendment
makes some minor wording changes, deletes a definition, and removes a
moot footnote.
Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC
staff's review is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the physical function of
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes
neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor
alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within
the assumed acceptance limits.
This change is a revision to the TSs SRs for the CEEACS, which
is a mitigation system designed to prevent uncontrolled releases of
radioactivity into the environment. The proposed amendment would
change TS SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 so that it will demonstrate integrity of
the containment enclosure building rather than operability of
CEEACS. The proposed amendment relocates SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 with
modifications to new SR 4.6.5.2.b. The CEEACS is not an initiator or
precursor to any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated
is not increased.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will not impact the accident analysis. The
changes will not alter the requirements of the CEEACS or its
function during accident conditions, and no new or different
accidents result from the proposed changes to the TSs.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
significant change in the method of plant operation. The changes do
not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, this
request does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not
involve a significant change in the method of plant operation, and
no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes.
Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used
to establish safety limits, will not relax any safety system
settings, and will not relax the bases for any limiting conditions
for operation. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design bases. The
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: May 8, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to revise
the Technical Specifications (TS), Section 3.3.1.I, ``Reactor
Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation,'' requirements pertaining to
the Average Power Range Monitors (APRMs). Specifically, the licensee
proposed to add a time period for restoration when the absolute
difference between the APRM channels and the calculated thermal power
exceeds the limit before declaring the channels inoperable.
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, which is reproduced 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 provides time for restoration when the APRMs
do not meet the limit of SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.3.1.1.2.
The APRM system is not an initiator of or a precursor to any
accident or transient. Plant design is not being modified by the
proposed change. The capability of the APRMs to perform their
required functions under these circumstances is not degraded since
the safety analyses include the power uncertainty.
As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of any
accident
[[Page 43379]]
previously evaluated [using] the requested Completion Time are no
different [than that using] the current Completion Time. As a
result, the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
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 to the TS requirements for the APRM system
do not introduce any new accident precursors and do not involve any
physical plant alterations or changes in the methods governing
normal plant operation that could initiate a new or different kind
of accident. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis and are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
The proposed amendment does not alter the intended function of the
APRM system and does not adversely affect the ability of the system
to provide core protection.
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.
This change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety since the extended time is small and allows for operator
consideration of plant conditions, personnel availability, and
appropriate response.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and
primary containment) to perform their design functions during and
following postulated accidents. The proposed amendment does not
alter setpoints or limits established or assumed by the accident
analyses. The TSs will continue to require operability of these APRM
functions to provide core protection for postulated reactivity
insertion events occurring during power operating conditions,
consistent with the plant safety analyses. This change is consistent
with plant design and does not change the actual TS operability
requirements; thus, previously evaluated accidents are not affected
by this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and 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: Istvan Frankl, Acting.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1
(VCSNS), Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change adds Notes to
the VCSNS Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.5.4, for the refueling water
storage tank (RWST) to allow administrative control of the seismically
qualified RWST/non-seismic spent fuel pool (SFP) purification loop
interface. This change would only be applicable for the next two fuel
cycles.
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 that has previously
been evaluated?
Response: No.
The SFP Purification Loop is not credited for safe shutdown of
the plant or accident mitigation. A combination of design and
administrative controls ensure that the SFP Purification Loop
maintains RWST boron concentration and water volume requirements
whenever the contents of the RWST are processed through the system.
Since the RWST will continue to perform its safety function and meet
all surveillance requirements, overall system performance is not
affected, assumptions previously made in evaluating the consequences
of the accident are not altered, and the consequences of the
accident are not increased.
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 of malfunction that has not previously
been evaluated?
Response: No.
Contingent upon manual operator action as described above, a SFP
Purification Loop line break will not result in a loss of the RWST
safety function. The Engineering Information Request (EIR)
evaluation supports that operator action can be taken within
sufficient time to isolate the RWST from the SFP Purification Loop
during postulated accidents. The 3 [inch] SFP Purification Loop is
not currently included in the Auxiliary Building flood calculation.
The issue was previously evaluated and the bounding flood rates
(generally in the 600 gpm [gallons per minute] to 725 gpm range)
were evaluated for the Auxiliary Building. The calculated leak rate
of 474 gpm remains within these limits.
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 SFP Purification Loop is not credited for safe shutdown of
the plant or accident mitigation. Contingent upon manual operator
action as described above, a SFP Purification Loop line break will
not result in a loss of the RWST safety function. The EIR evaluation
supports that operator action can be taken within sufficient time to
isolate the RWST from the SFP Purification Loop during postulated
accidents. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SCE&G concludes that the proposed amendment
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina
29218.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: May 23, 2012 (TS-SQN-12-01).
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.8.1 to include a surveillance
requirement (SR) to demonstrate the required offsite circuits OPERABLE
at least once per 18 months by manually and automatically transferring
the power supply to a 6.9 KiloVolt (kV) unit board from the normal
supply to the alternate supply. This change is necessary as a result of
the planned modifications to the plant design and operating
configuration that will allow use of the unit station service
transformers (USSTs) as a power supply to an offsite circuit.
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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[[Page 43380]]
The offsite circuits and their associated emergency loads are
accident mitigating features. As such, testing of the transfer
capability between the normal and alternate power supplies is not
associated with a potential accident-initiating mechanism.
Therefore, the changes do not affect accident or transient
initiation or consequences. The probability or consequences of
previously evaluated accidents will not be significantly affected by
the addition of the proposed offsite power source or surveillance
requirement. Verification of the capability to transfer power from
the USSTs to the CSSTs [common station service transformers]
demonstrates the availability of the offsite circuit to perform its
accident mitigation functions as assumed in the accident analyses.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not require any new or different
accidents to be postulated, since no changes are being made to the
plant that would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. This
license amendment request does not impact any plant systems in a
manner that would create a new or different kind of accident; nor
does it have any impact on any accident mitigating systems that
would significantly degrade the plant's response to an accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed plant modifications will allow an offsite circuit
configuration where the USSTs are capable of supplying normal power,
and alternate power is supplied by CSST A or CSST C. These design
changes require reinstatement of the TS SR to demonstrate the
capability to automatically transfer the power supply to each 6.9 kV
Unit Board from the normal supply to the alternate supply. The
proposed changes to the unit power operating configuration do not
alter the assumptions contained in the safety analyses regarding the
availability of the offsite circuits. The proposed changes do not
adversely impact the redundancy or availability requirements of
offsite power supplies or change the ability of the plant to cope
with station blackout events. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-261, H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of application for amendment: February 10, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) surveillance requirements for addressing a missed
surveillance, and is consistent with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approved Revision 6 of Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Standard TSs Change Traveler TSTF-358, ``Missed Surveillance
Requirements.''
Date of issuance: July 6, 2012.
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 229.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment changed
the license and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 17, 2012 (77 FR
22810).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 6, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: September 21, 2011, as
supplemented by letter dated February 24, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification surveillance requirements (SRs) for snubbers to conform
to the revised inservice inspection program, move the specific SRs of
TS 3/4.7.8, ``Snubbers,'' to the ``Snubber Examination, Testing, and
Service Life Monitoring Program,'' add a reference to the program in
the administrative controls section, and make administrative changes to
TS 3/4.7.8.
Date of issuance: June 28, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 310.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 29, 2011 (76
FR 73730).
The supplemental letters contain clarifying information, did not
change the scope of the license amendment request, did not change the
NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant
[[Page 43381]]
hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of
the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: August 15, 2011, as supplemented
by letter dated February 13, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' through
a reduction to the maximum steady state voltage criteria for safety-
related 4.16 kV buses from 4580 V to 4300 V in certain Technical
Specification (TS) Section 3.8.1 Surveillance Requirements.
Date of issuance: May 22, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 199.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 18, 2011 (76 FR
64391).
The February 13, 2012, supplement, contained clarifying information
and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-335, St. Lucie
Plant, Unit 1, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: November 22, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated February 25, 2011, March 3, March 14,
March 22, April 1, April 21, May 17, May 18, May 19 (three letters),
May 24, May 27, May 31 (two letters), June 16, June 22, July 5, July 8,
July 22, August 5, August 8, August 12, August 18, August 25 (two
letters), August 31, September 2 (two letters), September 8 (two
letters), September 22, September 23, September 27, September 29,
September 30, October 10, October 14, October 20, October 21, October
27, October 31 (six letters), November 1, November 23, November 29,
December 1, December 2, December 14, December 27, 2011, January 2,
2012, January 10, January 14, January 25, February 11, February 21,
February 29 (three letters), March 6 (two letters), March 8, March 15,
March 16, March 22, and March 26, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendments would
increase the licensed core power level for St. Lucie Unit 1 from 2070
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3020 MWt. This represents a net increase in
the core thermal power of approximately 11.85 percent, including a 10-
percent power uprate and a 1.7 percent measurement uncertainty
recapture, over the current licensed thermal power level and is defined
as an extended power uprate. The proposed amendments would change the
renewed facility operating license and the technical specifications
(TSs) to support operation at the increased core thermal power level,
including changes to the maximum licensed reactor core thermal power,
reactor core safety limits, and reactor protection system and
engineered safety feature actuation system limiting safety system
settings. Additional TS changes include reactor coolant system heatup
and cooldown limitations, safety injection tank pressure, hot leg
safety injection flow, accumulator and refueling water storage tank
boron concentrations, main steam safety valve lift settings, condensate
storage tank volume, emergency diesel generator fuel storage and core
operating limits report references. A complete list of the proposed TS
changes and the licensee's basis for change can be found in Attachment
1 of the licensee's application (Agencywide Documents and Management
System Accession No. ML103560422).
Date of issuance: July 9, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date
of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 213.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-67: Amendment revised
the Operating License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2011 (76 FR
33789).
The supplemental letters provided additional information that
clarified the application and did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed and published in the Federal
Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 9, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: August 1, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated August 17 and November 9, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopted the NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force traveler TSTF-425,
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF Initiative 5b.'' Specifically, the amendment relocates most
frequencies of periodic surveillances from each unit's TS to a
licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program
(SFCP), and imposes requirements for the new SFCP in the Administrative
Controls section of the TS.
Date of issuance: June 29, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--156; Unit 2--156.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 4, 2011 (76 FR
61397), which addresses the changes proposed by letters dated August 1
and August 17, 2012. The supplemental letter dated November 9, 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 June 29, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: December 13, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs),'' and
TS 3.7.3, ``Feedwater Isolation Valves (FIVs) and Feedwater Control
Valves (FCVs) and Associated Bypass Valves,'' in accordance with
previously approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change
Traveler TSTF-491,
[[Page 43382]]
Revision 2, by relocating the closure times for MSIVs, FIVs, FCVs, and
associated bypass valves to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM).
The availability of TSTF-491, Revision 2, was announced in the Federal
Register on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78472), as part of the
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP).
Date of issuance: June 29, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--157; Unit 2--157.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 24, 2012 (77 FR
3511).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: October 12, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes revision
of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to reflect deletion of five
high head safety injection (HHSI) containment isolation valves from the
local leak rate test program on the basis that they are in lines that
are closed outside of containment.
Date of issuance: July 9, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance.
Amendment No.: 191.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 13, 2011 (76
FR 77570).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 9, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: July 15, 2011, as supplemented
on October 20, 2011 (TS-SQN-2011-01).
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) requirements for steam generator (SG)
tube inspections to reflect the replacement steam generators (RSGs) to
be installed during refueling outage 18 presently scheduled for the
fall of 2012. Previous changes to the TSs to reflect the Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification
Traveler, TSTF-449, ``Steam Generator Tube Integrity,'' Revision 4,
were approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on May
22, 2007. The changes proposed in this amendment reflect the inspection
requirements of TSTF-449, Revision 4. The RSG tubes will be made of
Alloy 690 thermally treated (TT) material, and the existing SGs have
Alloy 600 tubes. The revisions to TSs are required because the
inspection frequency for Alloy 690 TT tube material, as defined in
TSTF-449, differs from the inspection frequency for Alloy 600, and the
tube repair processes and products in the existing TSs are not
applicable to the RSGs.
Date of issuance: July 10, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
upon startup from fall 2012 refueling outage after completing the
installation of new steam generators.
Amendment No.: 323.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-79: Amendment revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 6, 2011 (76
FR 55131). The supplement letter dated October 20, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of July 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-17869 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P