20070 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS—Continued 

Radioactive Solid Waste ........................... Amount of additional radioactive solid waste generated would be handled by the existing system. 

Spent Nuclear Fuel ................................... The spent fuel characteristics will remain within the bounding criteria used in the impact analysis in 

10 CFR Part 51, Table S–3 and Table S–4. 

Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain within NRC limits. 

Cumulative Radiological ........................... Radiation doses to the public and plant workers would remain below NRC and EPA radiation protection standards. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in the current environmental impacts. 

However, if the EPU were not approved 

for PTN Units 3 and 4, other agencies 

and electric power organizations may be 

required to pursue other means, such as 

fossil fuel or alternative fuel power 

generation, to provide electric 

generation capacity to offset future 

demand. Construction and operation of 

such a fossil-fueled or alternative-fueled 

plant could result in impacts in air 

quality, land use, and waste 

management greater than those 

identified for the proposed EPU for PTN 

Units 3 and 4. Furthermore, the 

proposed EPU does not involve 

environmental impacts that are 

significantly different from those 

originally identified in the PTN Unit 3 

or Unit 4 FES, and NUREG–1437, SEIS– 

5. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the PTN Unit 

3 or Unit 4 FES. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

the NRC staff consulted with the FDEP, 

SFWMD, Miami-Dade County, BNP, and 

FWCC regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action and 

specifically regarding the monitoring 

and mitigation plan that formed the 

basis of the Florida agencies 

recommending approval to the FDEP for 

the proposed EPU subject to the CoC 

during the State of Florida site 

certification process. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the details provided in 

the EA, the NRC concludes that granting 

the proposed EPU license amendment is 

not expected to cause impacts 

significantly greater than current 

operations. Therefore, the proposed 

action of implementing the EPU for PTN 

Units 3 and 4 will not have a significant 

effect on the quality of the human 

environment because no significant 

permanent changes are involved and the 

temporary impacts are within 

previously disturbed areas at the site 

and the capacity of the plant systems. 

Accordingly, the NRC has determined it 

is not necessary to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day 

of March 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jason C. Paige, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2– 

2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7947 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2012–0078] 

Biweekly Notice of 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 March 8, 

2012, to March 21, 2012. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

March 20, 2012 (77 FR 16271). 

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 2012–0078. 

You may submit comments by the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID 2012–0078. 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 2012–0078 

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 2012–0078. 

• 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 20071 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID 2012–0078 

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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

20072 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 

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 

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 E– 

Submittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/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’s Web 

site. Further information on the Webbased 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 the NRC 

guidance available on the NRC’s public 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/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 Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 20073 

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 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Detroit Edison, Docket No. 50–341, 

Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: 

December 20, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify Technical Specifications 

requirements related to primary 

containment isolation instrumentation. 

The changes are in accordance with 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

approved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF), Improved Standard 

Technical Specifications change TSTF– 

306, Revision 2. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Increase in the Probability or 

Consequences of an Accident Previously 

Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The addition of the note that the 

penetration flow path may be unisolated 

under administrative control provides 

consistency with what is already allowed 

elsewhere in TSs. The isolation function of 

the TIP [Traversing In-core Probe] valves is 

mitigative, and does not create any increased 

possibility of an accident. Also, the operation 

of the manual shear valves is unaffected by 

this activity. The ability to manually isolate 

the TIP system by either the normal isolation 

ball valves or the shear valves would be 

unaffected by the inoperable 

instrumentation. The Required Actions and 

their associated Completion Times are not 

initiating conditions for any 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. 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 

introduced as result of the proposed changes. 

All systems, structures, and components 

previously required for the mitigation of a 

transient remain capable of fulfilling their 

intended design functions. The proposed 

changes have no adverse effects on any 

safety-related system or component and do 

not challenge the performance or integrity of 

any safety-related system. As a result no new 

failure modes are being introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a 

Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will not affect the 

operation of plant equipment or the function 

of any equipment assumed in the accident 

analysis. The allowance to unisolate a 

penetration flow path will not have a 

significant effect on the margin of safety 

because the penetration flow path can be 

isolated manually, if needed. This change 

provides consistency with what is already 

allowed elsewhere in TSs. The option to 

isolate a TIP penetration will ensure the 

penetration will perform as designed in the 

accident analysis. The ability to manually 

isolate the TIP system is unaffected by the 

inoperable instrumentation. The proposed 

change does not impact any safety analysis 

assumptions or results. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

result in a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. 

Masters, DTE Energy, General Council— 

Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, 

Detroit, MI 48226–1279. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Shawn A. 

Williams. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), 

LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 

Inc., Docket No. 50–271, Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: 

December 22, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Operating License (OL) Condition 

3.S to allow Boiling Water Reactor 

Vessels and Internal Project (BWRVIP)– 

139–A ‘‘BWR Vessel and Internals 

Project Steam Dryer Inspection and 

Flaw Evaluation Guidelines’’ to be the 

basis for future steam dryer monitoring 

and inspections. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration which is presented below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The amendment does not significantly 

increase the probability of an accident since 

it does not involve a change to any plant 

equipment that initiates a plant accident. The 

change affects the standard by which future 

steam dryer monitoring and structural 

integrity inspections are performed. The 

proposed standard has been approved for use 

by the NRC. The steam dryer is not an 

initiator or mitigator of any previously 

evaluated accidents. Maintaining structural 

integrity of the steam dryer ensures that 

systems and components that are credited in 

station safety analysis function as designed. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not involve 

any physical alteration of plant equipment 

and does not change the method by which 

any safety-related system performs its 

function. The change affects the standard by 

which future steam dryer monitoring and 

structural integrity inspections are 

performed. The proposed standard has been 

approved for use by the NRC. No new or 

different types of equipment will be installed 

and the basic operation of installed 

equipment is unchanged. The methods 

governing plant operation and testing remain 

consistent with current safety analysis 

assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment affects the 

standard by which future steam dryer 

monitoring and structural integrity 

inspections are performed. The proposed 

standard has been approved for use by the 

NRC. The change does not affect design 

codes or design margins. The change 

provides for monitoring and inspection of the 

steam dryer to ensure the dryer maintains its 

integrity and does not affect safety related 

equipment. This ensures analyzed safety 

margins are maintained. 

Therefore, operation of VY in accordance 

with the proposed amendment will not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

to safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. 

Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

20074 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 

Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 

10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), 

LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 

Inc., Docket No. 50–271, Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: February 

1, 2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 4.7.A.6.b to 

allow the drywell to suppression 

chamber leak rate test to be performed 

once per operating cycle. No changes to 

test acceptance criteria are proposed. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration which is presented below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of an accident since it does not 

involve a modification to any plant 

equipment or affect how plant systems or 

components are operated. No design 

functions or design parameters are affected 

by the proposed amendment. The proposed 

amendment involves the scheduling of a 

surveillance requirement so that the affected 

surveillance can be done anytime during the 

operating cycle. The proposed amendment 

does not impact the ability of the vacuum 

breakers to function in the event of a LOCA 

[loss-of-coolant accident] during the test. 

Performance of the surveillance on line 

versus during a refuel outage does not pose 

a significant increase in risk. No changes to 

the acceptance criteria for the surveillance 

are proposed. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change involves the 

schedule for performing a TS surveillance 

requirement. The proposed change does not 

change the method by which any safetyrelated system performs its function. No new 

or different types of equipment will be 

installed and the test will be performed 

within the bounds of the TS requirements. 

The methods governing plant operation and 

testing remain consistent with current safety 

analysis assumptions. The proposed 

amendment involves the scheduling of a 

surveillance requirement so that the affected 

surveillance can be done anytime during the 

operating cycle. No changes to acceptance 

criteria for the surveillance are proposed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment involves the 

scheduling of a surveillance requirement so 

that the affected surveillance can be done 

anytime during the operating cycle. No 

changes to the acceptance criteria for the 

surveillance are proposed. The proposed 

change ensures that the safety functions of 

the pressure suppression chamber-drywell 

vacuum breakers continue to be fulfilled by 

performing the surveillance. The proposed 

amendment does not involve a physical 

modification of the plant and does not 

change the design or function of any 

component or system. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment will 

not involve a significant reduction in the 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. 

Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 

Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 

10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), 

LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 

Inc., Docket No. 50–271, Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: March 5, 

2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

VY Renewed Facility Operating License 

Condition (RFOLC) 3.P to clarify that 

the programs and activities described in 

the Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR) supplement submitted 

pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 54.21(d), 

as revised during the license renewal 

application process, may be changed 

without prior NRC approval provided 

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 have 

been previously satisfied. Additionally, 

RFOLC 3.Q is revised to clarify that the 

programs and activities, identified in 

Appendix A of Supplement 2 to 

NUREG–1907 and the UFSAR 

supplement, to be completed before the 

period of extended operation are 

completed on schedule and the NRC is 

to be notified upon completion of 

implementation of these activities. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration which is presented below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The amendment does not significantly 

increase the probability of an accident since 

it does not involve a change to any plant 

equipment that initiates a plant accident. The 

change clarifies RFOLC 3.P and 3.Q. The 

license conditions deal with administrative 

controls over information contained in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR) supplement. The proposed changes 

are administrative and the license conditions 

are not an initiator or mitigator of any 

previously evaluated accidents. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated since it does not involve any 

physical alteration of plant equipment and 

does not change the method by which any 

safety-related system performs its function. 

The license conditions deal with 

administrative controls over information 

contained in the UFSAR supplement. No 

new or different types of equipment will be 

installed and the basic operation of installed 

equipment is unchanged. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not affect 

design codes or design margins. The change 

clarifies RFOLC 3.P and 3.Q, is 

administrative in nature and does not have 

the ability to affect analyzed safety margins. 

Therefore, operation of VY in accordance 

with the proposed amendment will not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

to safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. 

Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 

Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 

10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 20075 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: March 1, 

2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would make 

miscellaneous changes to the Technical 

Specifications (TS) and Facility 

Operating License (FOL) including: (1) 

Correction of typographical errors; (2) 

deletion of historical requirements that 

have expired; (3) corrections of errors or 

omissions from previous license 

amendment requests; and (4) updating 

of component lists to reflect current 

plant design. 

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 

with Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff edits in square brackets: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to TS and the FOL 

are administrative in nature that correct 

typographical errors, or delete historical 

requirements that have expired. These 

changes do not affect the intent of any TS 

requirements. 

The proposed changes do not have any 

impact on structures, systems and 

components (SSCs) of the plant, and [have] 

no effect on plant operations. The proposed 

changes do not impact any accident initiators 

or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of 

accident or transient events. The proposed 

changes to the technical specifications do not 

result in the addition or removal of any 

equipment but update component lists to 

reflect equipment that was previously 

removed or abandoned. 

Therefore, these proposed changes do not 

represent 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 to TS and the FOL 

are administrative in nature that correct 

typographical errors, or delete historical 

requirements that have expired. These 

changes do not affect the intent of any TS 

requirements. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

modification to the physical configuration of 

the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be 

installed) or change in the methods 

governing normal plant operation. The 

proposed changes will not impose any new 

or different requirements or introduce a new 

accident initiator, accident precursor, or 

malfunction mechanism. 

Additionally, there is no change in the 

types or increases in the amounts of any 

effluent that may be released off-site and 

there is no increase in individual or 

cumulative occupational exposure. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of 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 to TS and the FOL 

are editorial in nature that correct 

typographical errors, or delete historical 

requirements that have expired. These 

changes do not affect the intent of any TS 

requirements. 

The proposed changes incorporate 

corrections to the TS and FOL and result in 

improved accuracy of these licensing 

documents. There is no change to any design 

basis, licensing basis or safety limit, and no 

change to any parameters; consequently no 

safety margins are affected. 

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, and with the changes noted 

above in square brackets, 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, 

PSEG Nuclear LLC–N21, P.O. Box 236, 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 

Previously Published Notices 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 following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50– 

388, Susquehanna Steam Electric 

Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: March 8, 

2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment allows a one-time 

temporary extension of 24 hours to the 

Completion Time for Condition C in the 

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 

(SSES) Unit 2 Technical Specification 

(TS) 3.8.7, ‘‘Distribution SystemsOperating,’’ to allow a Unit 1 4160 V 

subsystem to be de-energized and 

removed from service for 96 hours to 

perform modifications on the bus. It also 

allows a one-time temporary extension 

of 24 hours to the Completion Time for 

Condition A in SSES Unit 2 TS 3.7.1, 

‘‘Plant Systems-RHRSW [residual heat 

removal service water system] and UHS 

[ultimate heat sink],’’ to allow the UHS 

spray array and spray array bypass 

valves associated with applicable 

division RHRSW, and in Condition B, 

the applicable division Unit 2 RHRSW 

subsystem, to be inoperable for 96 hours 

during the Unit 1 4160 V bus breaker 

control logic modifications. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: March 16, 

2012 (77 FR 15814) 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

Comment period, April 16, 2012; 

Hearing period, May 15, 2012. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

20076 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 

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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 30, 2011, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 11, 2011, January 12, 

2012, and February 1, 2012. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.13, ‘‘RCS [Reactor 

Coolant System] Operational 

LEAKAGE,’’ TS 5.5.9, ‘‘Steam Generator 

(SG) Program,’’ and TS 5.6.8, ‘‘Steam 

Generator (SG) Tube Inspection Report.’’ 

Specifically, the amendments revised 

the TSs to accomplish the following 

objectives: permanently exclude 

portions of a steam generator (SG) tube 

below the top of the SG tubesheet from 

periodic SG tube inspections and 

plugging, permanently reduce the 

primary-to-secondary leakage limit, and 

permanently implement reporting 

requirement changes that had been 

previously established on a one-cycle 

basis. 

Date of issuance: March 12, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to entering the applicable Modes 

of the affected TS at the completion of 

the outage. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—267 and 

Unit 2—263. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments 

revised the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 19, 2012 (77 FR 

2766). 

The supplemental letters dated July 

11, 2011, January 12, 2012, and 

February 1, 2012, 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 (NSHC) determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments and final NSHC 

determination are contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated March 12, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 2, 2011, as supplemented on 

November 10, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specifications for each unit by changing 

the method of calculating core reactivity 

for the purpose of performing the 

reactivity anomaly surveillance at 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2. The change allows performance 

of the surveillance based on a 

comparison of predicted to actual 

(monitored) core reactivity. The 

reactivity anomaly verification was 

previously determined by a comparison 

of predicted versus actual control rod 

density. 

Date of issuance: March 14, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 207 and 168. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

39 and NPF–85. These amendments 

revised the license and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 9, 2011 (76 FR 48911). 

The supplement dated November 10, 

2011, 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 amendment is contained in Safety 

Evaluation dated March 14, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Esquire, Associate General 

Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, 

LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, 

IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–254, Quad Cities Nuclear 

Power Station, Unit 1, Rock Island 

County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 7, 2011, as supplemented by letters 

dated. September 21, 2011, November 2, 

2011, and January 9, 2012. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the value of the 

single recirculation loop operation 

(SLO) safety limit minimum critical 

power ratio (SLMCPR) in Technical 

Specifications Section 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor 

Core SLs [Safety Limits].’’ Specifically, 

the revision replaces the current SLO 

SLMCPR requirement for QCNPS Unit 1 

with a new SLMCPR requirement. The 

revision is necessary because of errors 

that were discovered in the 

Westinghouse McSLAP computer code 

that resulted in a non-conservative SLO 

SLMCPR. 

Date of issuance: March 8, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 250. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–29: The amendments revised 

the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 16, 2011 (72 FR 

50762). 

The September 21, 2011, November 2, 

2011, and January 9, 2012, supplements 

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 amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–265, Quad Cities Nuclear 

Power Station, Unit 2, Rock Island 

County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

November 22, 2011, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 9, 2012. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the value of the 

single recirculation loop operation 

(SLO) and dual recirculation loop 

operation (DLO) safety limit minimum 

critical power ratio (SLMCPR) in 

Technical Specifications Section 2.1.1, 

‘‘Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits].’’ 

Specifically, the revision replaces the 

current SLO and DLO SLMCPR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 20077 

requirement for QCNPS Unit 2 with a 

new SLMCPR requirement. The revision 

is necessary because of errors that were 

discovered in the Westinghouse 

McSLAP computer code that resulted in 

non-conservative SLMCPR.values. 

Date of issuance: March 8, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 245. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–30: The amendments revised 

the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 3, 2012 (77 FR 140). 

The January 9, 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 amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 8, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 

and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and 

2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendment: 

May 27, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revise Technical 

Specifications (TSs) associated with 

replacing sodium hydroxide with 

sodium tetraborate as a chemical 

additive for containment sump pH 

control following a loss-of-coolant 

accident at BVPS–1. Due to common 

TSs for BVPS–1 and 2, administrative 

changes were made to BVPS–2 license 

to reflect the BVPS–1 changes. 

Date of issuance: March 14, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to achieving Mode 4 during 

startup from the BVPS–1 refueling 

outage in the spring of 2012. 

Amendment Nos.: 289 and 176. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

66 and NPF–73: Amendments revise the 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 10, 2012 (77 FR 

1518). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of March 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7676 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2012–0002] 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATE: Weeks of April 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 

May 7, 2012. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of April 2, 2012 

Tuesday April 3, 2012 

9:30 a.m. Meeting with Organization of 

Agreement States (OAS) and 

Conference of Radiation Control 

Program Directors (CRCPD) (Public 

Meeting) (Contact: Cindy Flannery, 

301–415–0223). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—www.nrc.gov. 

Week of April 9, 2012—Tentative 

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 

9 a.m. Briefing on the Final Report of 

the Blue Ribbon Commission on 

America’s Nuclear Future (Public 

Meeting) (Contact: Alicia Mullins, 

301–492–3351). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—www.nrc.gov. 

Week of April 16, 2012—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of April 16, 2012. 

Week of April 23, 2012—Tentative 

Tuesday, April 24, 2012 

9 a.m. Briefing on Part 35 Medical 

Events Definitions—Permanent 

Implant Brachytherapy (Contact: 

Michael Fuller, 301–415–0520). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—www.nrc.gov. 

Week of April 30, 2012—Tentative 

Monday, April 30, 2012 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Human Capital 

and Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) (Public Meeting) 

(Contact: Kristin Davis, 301–492– 

2208). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—www.nrc.gov. 

Week of May 7, 2012—Tentative 

Friday, May 11, 2012 

9 a.m. Briefing on Potential Medical 

Isotope Production Licensing 

Actions (Public Meeting) (Contact: 

Jessie Quichocho, 301–415–0209). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—www.nrc.gov. 

*The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—301–415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, 301–415–1651. 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify Bill 

Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits 

Branch, at 301–415–6200, TDD: 301– 

415–2100, or by email at 

william.dosch@nrc.gov. Determinations 

on requests for reasonable 

accommodation will be made on a caseby-case basis. 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an email to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

Dated: March 29, 2012. 

Rochelle C. Bavol, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8077 Filed 3–30–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Request for a License To Export 

Radioactive Waste 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70 (b) ‘‘Public 

Notice of Receipt of an Application,’’ 

please take notice that the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has 

received the following request for an 

export license. Copies of the request are 

available electronically through ADAMS 

and can be accessed through the Public 

Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html at 

the NRC Homepage. 

A request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene may be filed within 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES