Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 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: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Chief, Rules, Announcements, and 

Directives Branch (RADB), Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– 

B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

• Fax comments to: RADB at 301– 

492–3446. 

For additional direction on accessing 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Accessing Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Accessing Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Accessing Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012– 

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/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search, 

select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and 

then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Documents may be viewed in ADAMS 

by performing a search on the document 

date and docket number. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2012– 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13370 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

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 EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

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 NRCissued 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 ESubmittal 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/esubmittals.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/esubmittals.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/esubmittals.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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.

gov, or by a toll-free call at 1–866 672– 

7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk 

is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at 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. Nontimely 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 pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. 

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 NRCapproved 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13372 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

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 (°F) to 70 °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 NRCapproved 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 NRCapproved 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13373 

over the service lifetime. The values of 

adjusted reference temperature and uppershelf 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13374 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

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 pdr.

resource@nrc.gov. 

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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 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 singlerecirculation 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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13376 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0549; Docket No. 50–113] 

Notice of License Termination for the 

University of Arizona Research 

Reactor, License No. R–52 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is noticing the 

termination of Facility Operating 

License No. R–52, for the University of 

Arizona Research Reactor (UARR). 

The NRC has terminated the license of 

the decommissioned UARR, at the 

Nuclear Reactor Laboratory (NRL) on 

the campus of the University of Arizona 

(U of AZ) in Pima County, Arizona in 

the city of Tucson, and has released the 

site for unrestricted use. The licensee 

requested termination of the license in 

a letter to the NRC dated December 1, 

2011 (ADAMS Accession Number 

ML11346A300). The NRL Research 

Reactor provided training for Nuclear 

Engineering students and various 

services for researchers in other 

departments at the U of AZ. The 

licensee ceased operation of the facility 

on May 18, 2010, and the reactor fuel 

was removed by the Department of 

Energy on December 23, 2010, with the 

fuel being delivered to the Idaho 

National Laboratory. The NRL 

underwent decommissioning activities 

from May 2011 through September 2011 

followed by Final Status Surveys (FSS) 

to measure Total (Static) Beta activity 

and to perform radiological scan 

measurements. Smears were also 

collected for tritium and beta to assess 

the final radiological status of the 

facility. 

The licensee submitted a request 

dated May 21, 2009 (ML091490076), to 

the NRC to approve its 

decommissioning plan (DP), dated May 

21, 2009 (ML091490074). The NRC 

requested additional information for its 

review of the DP by letter dated 

February 25, 2010 (ML100550614), and 

the licensee responded to that request 

on March 26, 2010 (ML100920089). The 

NRC approved the UARR DP by 

Amendment No. 20, dated April 15, 

2011 (ML110470589). 

As required by the DP license 

amendment, the U of AZ submitted the 

Final Status Survey (FSS) Plan for the 

NRL on May 25, 2011 (ML11168A059). 

Although no NRC approval was 

required, the NRC reviewed the survey 

plan and has determined that it was 

consistent with the guidance in 

NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated 

Decommissioning Guidance’’ and 

NUREG–1575, ‘‘Multi-Agency Radiation 

Survey and Site Investigation Manual.’’ 

The U of AZ submitted a revised FSS 

Plan on August 18, 2011 

(ML11234A164). The NRC reviewed this 

revision and has determined it also to be 

acceptable. 

The U of AZ submitted the FSS report 

for the NRL on December 1, 2011 

(ML11346A300). That report stated that 

the survey met the FSS plan and the DP, 

and demonstrated that the NRL met the 

requirements for unrestricted release 

specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. 

The NRC reviewed the FSS report and 

has determined that the survey was 

conducted in accordance with the 

Decommissioning Plan and the FSS 

Plan. Additionally, the NRC has 

determined that the survey results in the 

report comply with the criteria in the 

NRC-approved decommissioning plan 

and the release criteria in 10 CFR Part 

20, Subpart E for both the UARR and the 

NRL have been met. 

On July 5, 2011, NRC Region IV 

issued inspection report 050–00113/11– 

001 for the research reactor at the NRL 

(ML11187A017). The inspector 

interviewed licensee staff, observed 

work in progress, and reviewed selected 

documents related to the licensee’s 

decommissioning activities. The 

inspector concluded that the licensee 

and its contracted work force were 

conducting decommissioning activities 

in accordance with the NRC approved 

decommissioning plan. The inspector 

also determined that the licensee’s final 

status survey plan was in general 

agreement with NRC guidance. 

At the request of the NRC, the Oak 

Ridge Institute for Science and 

Education (ORISE) conducted 

confirmatory survey activities at the 

NRL during the week of September 6, 

2011. ORISE submitted a report of their 

confirmatory survey activities by letter 

dated November 7, 2011 

(ML11319A101). The survey activities 

were conducted in accordance with an 

ORISE confirmatory survey plan 

provided to and approved by the NRC 

on August 18, 2011 (ML120400169). 

The confirmatory survey activities 

included visual inspections/ 

assessments, gamma measurements, 

alpha plus beta measurements, smear 

sampling, and soil sampling activities. 

As a result of the confirmatory survey 

activities, ORISE noted two issues with 

licensee’s FSS activities performed at 

the NRL. The first was an area of 

residual activity above the Co-60 

screening level in source pit number 2. 

Since confirmatory surveys occurred, 

surface activity in source pit 2 has been 

remediated to a value below the Co-60 

screening level. The second issue 

identified by ORISE was use of an 

incorrect surface efficiency. As a result, 

the licensee’s contractor agreed to recalculate surface activity using the 

correct surface efficiency value for Co60. Because the two issues described 

have been resolved with the licensee, 

ORISE concluded that the licensee’s 

FSS data adequately and accurately 

demonstrated that the NRL is below the 

appropriate screening levels and that 

ORISE confirmatory survey activities 

validate the licensee’s conclusion that 

the appropriate guidelines have been 

met. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(6), the 

NRC staff has concluded that UARR at 

the NRL has been decommissioned in 

accordance with the approved 

decommissioning plan and that the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES