22808 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

name and affiliation 3 working days 

prior to the meeting to Marian Norris. 

Patricia D. Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9114 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2012–0090] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses 

Involving No Significant Hazards 

Considerations 

Background 

Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or the 

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 22, 

2012 to April 4, 2012. The last biweekly 

notice was published on April 3, 2012 

(77 FR 20070). 

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–2012–0090. You 

may submit comments by the following 

methods: 

• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2012–0090. 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– 

0090 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–2012–0090. 

• 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– 

0090 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) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22809 

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 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 

information (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 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22810 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/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 firstclass 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 

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 PDR 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Carolina Power and Light Company, 

Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson 

Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, 

(HBRSEP), Darlington County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: February 

10, 2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change revises the 

Technical Specification (TS) 

surveillance requirements (SRs) for 

addressing a missed surveillance. The 

change is consistent with the NRCapproved Revision 6 of Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Standard Technical Specifications 

(STSs) Change Traveler TSTF–358, 

‘‘Missed Surveillance Requirements.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change to incorporate the 

requirements of improved STS SR 3.0.3 into 

corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, 

respectively, does not affect the design or 

operation of the plant. The proposed change 

involves revising the existing HBRSEP 

custom TS to be consistent with NUREG– 

1431, Revision 3, to facilitate the 

incorporation of TSTF–358 into the TS. The 

proposed change involves no technical 

changes to the existing TS as it merely 

clarifies how SRs are met. As such, these 

changes are administrative in nature and do 

not affect initiators of analyzed events or 

assumed mitigation of accident or transient 

events. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. The proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated. 

The proposed change to incorporate the 

requirements of improved STS SR 3.0.3 into 

corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, 

respectively, does not involve a physical 

alteration to the plant (no new or different 

type of equipment will be installed) or 

changes in methods governing normal plant 

operation. The proposed change revises the 

existing HBRSEP TS to be consistent with 

NUREG–1431, Revision 3, to clarify how SRs 

are met and facilitates the incorporation of 

TSTF–358 for addressing missed 

surveillances. As such, the proposed change 

will not impose any new or different 

requirements or eliminate any existing 

requirements. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant reduction in the margin of 

safety. 

The proposed change to incorporate the 

requirements of improved STS SR 3.0.3 into 

corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, 

respectively, does not affect plant operation 

or safety analysis assumptions in any way. 

The change provides additional clarification 

on how a surveillance is met and facilitates 

the incorporation of TSTF–358 for addressing 

missed surveillances. The change is 

administrative in nature and does not affect 

the operation of safety-related systems, 

structures, or components. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22811 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David T. 

Conley, Manager—Senior Counsel— 

Legal Department, Progress Energy 

Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 

1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Carolina Power and Light Company, 

Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson 

Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, 

Darlington County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: March 

16, 2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would make 

corrections in the Technical 

Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1–1 Note 1 

for Overtemperature Delta Temperature 

(OTDT). The corrections are consistent 

with NUREG–1431, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specification Westinghouse 

Plants’’, Revision 3. The proposed 

change to TS Table 3.3.1–1 Note 1 

corrects the inequality symbol 

associated with the nominal Reactor 

Coolant System operating pressure (P’). 

The P’ provided in TS Table 3.3.1–1 

Note 1 was incorrectly specified as less 

than or equal to (≤) 2235 pounds per 

square inch gage (psig) and is being 

corrected to greater than or equal to (≥) 

2235 psig. In addition, the f(DI) penalty 

factor for axial power distribution 

values less than ¥17 percent Rated 

Thermal Power (RTP) or less than 12 

percent RTP is currently specified as 

‘‘2.4’’ and is being clarified to 2.4%. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change is a correction to the 

equation for OTDT setpoint and the inputs 

for f(DI) shown in Table 3.3.1–1 Note 1. The 

OTDT equation and variables values serve as 

a model for trip setpoint calculation. The 

errors in Table 3.3.1–1 being addressed by 

this proposed change were contained in and 

introduced during the implementation of 

NUREG–1431, Improved Standard Technical 

Specifications, Revision 1. The proposed 

changes are consistent with NUREG–1431, 

Revision 3, which has corrected these errors. 

The OTDT parameter limits continue to be 

determined using the NRC methodologies 

and OTDT will continue to be within the 

limit assumed in the accident analysis. As a 

result, neither the probability nor the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated will be affected. 

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 or different accidents result from 

the proposed changes. The changes do not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., 

no new or different type of equipment will 

be installed) or a change in the methods 

governing normal plant operation. In 

addition, the changes do not impose any new 

or different requirements or eliminate any 

existing requirements. The changes do not 

alter assumptions made in the safety 

analysis. The proposed changes are 

consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions and current plant operating 

practice. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

This change will have no effect on the 

margin of safety. This proposed change is a 

correction to the OTDT setpoint calculation 

and the inputs for f(DI). 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, 

Manager—Senior Counsel—Legal 

Department, Progress Energy Service 

Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. NRC 

Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. 

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: 

December 8, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would: (1) 

extend the frequency of Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.1.3 (calibration 

of loss of power instrumentation) from 

18 to 24 months, and (2) revise the 

Allowable Values of certain functions in 

Table 3.3.8.1–1 of Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.3.8.1, ‘‘Loss of 

Power (LOP) Instrumentation.’’ The SR 

extension will make the administration 

and performance of that SR consistent 

with the River Bend Station’s 24-month 

operating cycles, as approved by the 

NRC in Amendment No. 168 dated 

August 31, 2010. The changes to the 

Allowable Values are necessary to 

address the discovery of a nonconservative value in the affected TS 

3.3.8.1. 

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. 

SR extension: 

The proposed TS change revises a 

surveillance testing interval to facilitate a 

change in the operating cycle length. The 

proposed TS change involves no physical 

alteration of the plant. The proposed TS 

change does not degrade the performance of, 

or increase the challenges to, any safety 

systems assumed to function in the accident 

analysis. The proposed TS change does not 

adversely affect the usefulness of the SR in 

evaluating the operability of required system 

and components, or the way in which the 

surveillance is performed. In addition, the 

frequency of surveillance testing is not 

considered an initiator of any analyzed 

accident, nor does a revision to the frequency 

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 change does not 

affect the performance of any equipment 

credited to mitigate the radiological 

consequences of an accident. Evaluation of 

the proposed TS change has 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 evidence of failures that 

would invalidate the above conclusions. 

AV changes: 

The change in the degraded voltage 

protection voltage and time delay allowable 

values allows the protection scheme to 

function as originally designed. (This change 

will involve alteration of nominal trip 

setpoints in the field, also to be reflected in 

revisions to the calibration procedures.) The 

proposed allowable values ensure that the 

Class 1 E distribution system remains 

connected to the offsite power system when 

adequate offsite voltage is available and 

motor starting transients are considered. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22812 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

Calculations have demonstrated that 

adequate margin is present to support the 

decrease in the minimum allowable Division 

3 degraded voltage. The proposed time delay 

continues to provide equipment protection 

while preventing a premature separation 

from offsite power. The diesel start due to a 

Loss of Coolant Accident signal is not 

adversely affected by this change. During an 

actual degraded voltage condition, the 

degraded voltage time delays will continue to 

isolate the Class 1 E distribution system from 

offsite power before the diesel is ready to 

assume the emergency loads, which is the 

limiting time basis for mitigating system 

responses to the accident. For this reason, the 

existing loss of power/loss of coolant 

accident analysis continues to be valid. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

SR extension: 

The proposed TS change revises a 

surveillance testing interval to facilitate a 

change in the operating cycle length. The 

proposed TS change does not introduce any 

failure mechanisms of a different type than 

those previously evaluated, since there are no 

physical 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. 

The way surveillance tests are performed 

remains unchanged. 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. 

AV changes: 

The proposed change involves the revision 

of degraded voltage protection voltage and 

time delay allowable values to satisfy 

existing design requirements. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

SR extension: 

The proposed TS change revises a 

surveillance testing interval to facilitate a 

change in the operating cycle length. The 

effect of this change 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. Evaluation has 

shown there is no evidence of time 

dependent failures that would affect the 

availability of the systems. The proposed 

change does not adversely affect the 

condition or performance of structures, 

systems, and components relied upon for 

accident mitigation. The proposed change 

does 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 

change does not significantly affect any 

safety analysis assumptions or results. 

AV changes: 

The proposed protection voltage allowable 

values are low enough to prevent inadvertent 

power supply transfer, but high enough to 

ensure that sufficient voltage is available to 

the required equipment. The proposed time 

delay continues to provide equipment 

protection while preventing a premature 

separation from offsite power. The diesel 

start due to a Loss of Coolant Accident signal 

is not adversely affected by this change. 

During an actual degraded voltage condition, 

the degraded voltage time delays will 

continue to isolate the Class 1 E distribution 

system from off site power before the diesel 

is ready to assume the emergency loads. 

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: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

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 

the Technical Specification 3.3.B.3 

allowances for bypassing the Rod Worth 

Minimizer (RWM) consistent with the 

allowances recommended in the 

Standard Technical Specifications. 

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. The RWM is 

credited to minimize the probability and 

consequences of a control rod drop accident 

however this amendment proposes to 

substitute additional administrative 

requirements that ensure the analysis 

remains conservative and bounding. The 

additional requirements are considered 

adequate so as not to have a significant 

impact on the probability or consequences of 

an accident. Individuals performing the 

additional verification of selected control 

rods are qualified and use additional process 

controls to ensure they perform the necessary 

verifications. 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 new modes of operation. The change 

established additional administrative 

controls for when the RWM system is 

inoperable. The administrative controls 

involve performing an independent 

verification that the correct control rod is 

selected. The proposed amendment does not 

change how the control rods are moved or 

change the design configuration of the 

control rods. No new accident precursors are 

introduced. No new or different types of 

equipment will be installed. The methods 

governing plant operation remain bounded 

by current safety analysis assumptions. 

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 establishes 

additional administrative requirements for 

when the RWM is inoperable. The additional 

administrative controls provide reasonable 

assurance that station safety analysis results 

are unchanged and existing safety margins 

are preserved. The amendment ensures that 

control rod selection remains within 

established withdrawal sequences and 

minimizes the probability that a human error 

will result is an out of sequence rod being 

moved. 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22813 

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 

12, 2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

request to approve revision of License 

Renewal Commitment (LRC) No. 3 and 

No. 6 as described in Appendix A of 

Supplement 2 to NUREG–1907. 

Specifically, LRC No. 3 would be 

revised to clarify that cleaning and 

inspecting of the fire pump diesel 

storage tank is not required in order to 

perform ultrasonic thickness (UT) 

measurements of the tank bottom 

surface and LRC No. 6 would be revised 

to use manual cycle counting to track 

and compare accumulated cycles 

against allowable values to determine if 

cumulative usage factors are required to 

be updated. 

The proposed amendment would also 

approve revision of LRC No. 16 and LRC 

No. 19, which require, respectively, 

implementation of the One Time 

Inspection Program as described License 

Renewal Application (LRA) Section 

B.1.21, and implementation of the 

Selective Leaching Program as described 

in LRA Section B.1.25. Specifically, the 

proposed amendment would approve 

revising the Aging Management Program 

for Selective Leaching described in LRA 

Section B.1.25 to provide alternative 

assessment methods for gray cast iron 

components and approve revising the 

One-Time Inspection Program described 

in LRA Section B.1.21 to remove the 

reactor vessel flange leak-off line and 

main stream line flow restrictors from 

the program. 

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 revises license renewal commitments 

and aging management programs. License 

renewal commitments and aging 

management programs are in place to ensure 

that the effects of aging are properly managed 

for the systems, structures and components 

within the scope of the programs during the 

period of extended operation. The proposed 

changes 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 change revises license renewal 

commitments and aging management 

programs. License renewal commitments and 

aging management programs are in place to 

ensure that the effects of aging are properly 

managed for the systems, structures and 

components within the scope of the programs 

during the period of extended operation. 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 

revises license renewal commitments and 

aging management programs. License 

renewal commitments and aging 

management programs are in place to ensure 

that the effects of aging are properly managed 

for the systems, structures and components 

within the scope of the programs during the 

period of extended operation. The proposed 

changes do 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. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: October 

13, 2011, as supplemented by letters 

dated November 25, 2011, and January 

18, 2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would modify 

Technical Specification (TSs) 3/4.7.4 

Table 3.7–3, ‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink 

Minimum Fan Requirements Per Train,’’ 

which indicates the minimum Dry 

Cooling Tower (DCT) and Wet Cooling 

Tower (WCT) fan requirements for given 

meteorological conditions. The 

amendment would modify the WCT fan 

requirements by placing a limit on the 

number of inoperable fans per cell. This 

change is needed because the current TS 

requirement was found to be nonconservative. To address nonconservatisms in the TS, Entergy 

Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), 

has implemented administrative 

controls that limit the number of WCT 

fans allowed out-of-service per cell. In 

concert with the above change, the dry 

bulb temperature limits for the DCT and 

wet bulb temperature limits for the WCT 

will also be lowered to accommodate 

the increased heat load resulting from 

the Replacement Steam Generators. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change modifies TS 3/4.7.4 

Table 3.7–3 to be consistent with the revised 

design basis calculation. This change is 

necessary to preserve the assumptions and 

limits of the revised UHS [ultimate heat sink] 

design basis calculation. The calculation 

determines the maximum number of cooling 

tower fans allowed out-of-service for a given 

wet or dry bulb temperature and establishes 

more restrictive cooling tower fan operating 

requirements. The proposed change does not 

directly affect any material condition of the 

plant that could contribute to an accident or 

that could contribute to the consequences of 

an accident. The proposed change ensures 

that the mitigating effects of the UHS will be 

consistent with the design basis analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change will not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change modifies TS 3/4.7.4 

Table 3.7–3 to be consistent with the revised 

design basis calculation. The revised 

calculation lowers the dry and wet bulb 

temperature limits to account for increased 

heat duty for the Replacement Steam 

Generators. This change also implements 

more restrictive WCT minimum fan 

requirements. The proposed change to Table 

3.7–3 does not alter the operation of the plant 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22814 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

or the manner in which the plant is operated 

such that it created credible new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators. 

Therefore, the proposed change will not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change modifies TS 3/4.7.4 

Table 3.7–3 to be consistent with the revised 

design basis calculation. More restrictive 

cooling tower fan operability requirements 

result from placing lower limits on the wet 

and dry bulb temperatures in the TS and 

limits on the number of WCT out-of-service 

fans per cell. These revised temperatures are 

based on calculations ECM98–009 and 

ECl91–029, and an additional allowance to 

account for minor inaccuracies. The TS Bases 

3.4/7.4 indicates that the calculated 

temperature values associated with the DCT 

and WCT fan requirements have been 

rounded in the conservative direction and 

lowered at least one full degree to account for 

minor inaccuracies. The proposed change 

preserves the margin of safety by ensuring 

that the minimum number of operable fans 

per cell for a given temperature are capable 

of removing the heat duty for the UHS. The 

proposed change does not exceed or alter a 

design basis or safety limit. 

Therefore, the proposed change will 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: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

November 21, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would relocate the 

following Technical Specifications (TSs) 

to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3 (Waterford 3), Technical 

Requirements Manual: (a) TS 3.4.6, 

‘‘Chemistry,’’ (b) TS 3.7.5, ‘‘Flood 

Protection,’’ (c) TS 3.7.9, ‘‘Sealed Source 

Contamination,’’ and (d) TS 3.9.5, 

‘‘Communications.’’ 

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. 

This proposed change relocates Technical 

Specifications (TS) 3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 

3.7.5 (Flood Protection), TS 3.7.9 (Sealed 

Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5 

(Communications) to the Waterford 3 

Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). This 

is consistent with the requirements of [10 

CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] and aligns with NUREG– 

1432 (Combustion Engineering Standard 

Technical Specifications). 

Each TS relocation was evaluated against 

the [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria to 

demonstrate no impact on the design basis 

accident or probability. Consequently, this 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed TS 3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 

3.7.5 (Flood Protection), TS 3.7.9 (Sealed 

Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5 

(Communications) relocation to the 

Waterford 3 TRM does not change any of the 

controls necessary for design basis accident 

initiation or mitigation. The proposed change 

is allowable because the evaluation against 

the [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria shows no 

impact. This provides assurance that the 

design basis accidents will remain within 

their initial assumptions and consequently, 

there is no possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident due to this change. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed TS 3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 

3.7.5 (Flood Protection), TS 3.7.9 (Sealed 

Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5 

(Communications) relocation to the 

Waterford 3 TRM will not affect protection 

criterion for plant equipment and will not 

reduce the margin of safety. The Waterford 3 

TRM requires the [10 CFR 50.59] process be 

entered for any corresponding change, thus 

maintaining the required margin of safety. 

Consequently, there is no significant 

reduction in a margin of safety due to this 

change. 

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: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Florida Power Corporation, et al., 

Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 

Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: March 

19, 2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The NRC issued Amendment No. 239, 

Departure from a Method of Evaluation 

for the Auxiliary Building Overhead 

Crane (FHCR–5), on December 27, 2011. 

Amendment No. 239 was approved to 

be implemented within 180 days of 

issuance of the amendment. In license 

amendment request 312, Revision 0, the 

licensee requested additional time to 

complete the implementation of 

Amendment No. 239 from 180 days to, 

‘‘Implementation shall be completed 90 

days prior to moving a spent fuel 

shipping cask with FHCR–5.’’ The 

licensee requested extending the 

implementation period to allow for 

installation and testing of the new single 

failure proof FHCR–5. 

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 not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed LAR implementation 

schedule change request is administrative in 

nature and does not require any physical 

plant modifications, physically affect any 

plant systems or components, or entail 

changes in plant operation. The spent fuel 

will remain in the pool and continue to be 

cooled until the cask operations commence 

after implementation is complete. 

Therefore, this change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed LAR implementation 

schedule change request is administrative in 

nature and does not require any physical 

plant modifications, physically affect any 

plant systems or components, or entail 

changes in plant operation. Maintenance and 

modification activities near the spent fuel 

pools are controlled to preclude the 

possibility of a heavy load drop. No new 

accident scenarios, failure mechanisms or 

limiting single failures are introduced as 

result of the proposed change. The proposed 

amendment implementation schedule change 

request has no adverse effects on any safetyrelated system. 

Therefore, the proposed change will not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22815 

3. Does not involve a significant reduction 

in a margin of safety. 

The proposed LAR implementation 

schedule change request is administrative in 

nature and does not require any physical 

plant modifications, physically affect any 

plant systems or components, or entail 

changes in plant operation. The proposed 

amendment implementation schedule change 

request does not involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

Based on the above, FPC [the licensee] 

concludes that the proposed license 

amendment request presents no significant 

hazards consideration under the standards 

set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c) and, accordingly, 

a finding of ‘‘no significant hazards 

consideration’’ is justified. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David T. 

Conley, Associate General Counsel II— 

Legal Department, Progress Energy 

Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 

1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Docket 

No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 

1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: May 14, 

2010, as supplemented August 24, 2010, 

September 16, 2011, and March 15, 

2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The license amendment request was 

originally noticed in the Federal 

Register on July 13, 2010 (75 FR 39979). 

This notice is being reissued in its 

entirety to include a revised description 

of the amendment request. The 

proposed changes would revise the 

Seabrook Station Technical 

Specifications (TSs) governing the 

Containment Enclosure Emergency Air 

Cleanup System (CEEACS). The 

proposed amendment would change TS 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 

4.6.5.1.d.4 so that it will demonstrate 

integrity of the containment enclosure 

building rather than operability of 

CEEACS. The proposed amendment 

relocates SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 with 

modifications to new SR 4.6.5.2.b. 

Additionally, the proposed amendment 

makes some minor wording changes, 

deletes a definition, and removes a moot 

footnote. 

Basis for proposed NSHC 

determination: As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration. The NRC staff 

has reviewed the licensee’s analysis 

against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). 

The NRC staff’s review is presented 

below: 

1. The proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated 

The proposed change does not impact 

the physical function of plant 

structures, systems, or components 

(SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs 

perform their design function. The 

proposed changes neither adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors, 

nor alter design assumptions. The 

proposed changes do not alter or 

prevent the ability of operable SSCs to 

perform their intended function to 

mitigate the consequences of an 

initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. 

This change is a revision to the TSs 

SRs for the CEEACS, which is a 

mitigation system designed to prevent 

uncontrolled releases of radioactivity 

into the environment. The proposed 

amendment would change TS SR 

4.6.5.1.d.4 so that it will demonstrate 

integrity of the containment enclosure 

building rather than operability of 

CEEACS. The proposed amendment 

relocates SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 with 

modifications to new SR 4.6.5.2.b. The 

CEEACS is not an initiator or precursor 

to any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

increased. 

2. The proposed change does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind 

of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated 

The proposed change will not impact 

the accident analysis. The changes will 

not alter the requirements of the 

CEEACS or its function during accident 

conditions, and no new or different 

accidents result from the proposed 

changes to the TSs. The changes do not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant 

(i.e., no new or different type of 

equipment will be installed) or a 

significant change in the method of 

plant operation. The changes do not 

alter assumptions made in the safety 

analysis. Therefore, this request does 

not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. The proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety 

Margin of safety is associated with 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, 

reactor coolant system pressure 

boundary, and containment structure) to 

limit the level of radiation dose to the 

public. The proposed changes do not 

involve a significant change in the 

method of plant operation, and no 

accident analyses will be affected by the 

proposed changes. Additionally, the 

proposed changes will not relax any 

criteria used to establish safety limits, 

will not relax any safety system settings, 

and will not relax the bases for any 

limiting conditions for operation. The 

safety analysis acceptance criteria are 

not affected by this change. The 

proposed change will not result in plant 

operation in a configuration outside the 

design bases. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that 

respond to safely shutdown the plant 

and to maintain the plant in a safe 

shutdown condition. Therefore, these 

proposed changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves NSHC. 

Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, 

Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. 

Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: January 

20, 2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The licensee proposed to revise the 

MNGP Technical Specifications (TS), 

adding a new Section 5.6.5 to specify 

requirements about the contents of a 

Pressure and Temperature Limits Report 

(PTLR), and to replace existing TS 

requirements regarding reactor vessel 

heatup and cooldown rate limits and the 

pressure and temperature (P–T) limit 

curves referencing the PTLR. The 

proposed new Section 5.6.5 is 

consistent with the guidance provided 

in NRC Generic Letter 96–03, 

‘‘Relocation of the Pressure Temperature 

Limit Curves and Low Temperature 

Overpressure Protection System 

Limits.’’ These new curves have been 

developed applying the analytical 

methodology described in Structural 

Integrity Associates (SIA) Report SIR– 

05–044–A, ‘‘Pressure-Temperature 

Limits Report Methodology for Boiling 

Water Reactors,’’ which has previously 

received NRC approval. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22816 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

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 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. 

Appendix G of 10 CFR 50 requires 

licensees to establish limits for the pressure 

and temperature of the reactor coolant 

pressure boundary (RCPB) in order to protect 

against brittle failure. These limits are 

defined by P–T curves, which, when 

properly defined and adhered to, will protect 

the RCPB against brittle failure regardless of 

where these curves and associated 

requirements are located. The proposed 

amendment only affects the location of the 

P–T limits curves and associated 

requirements. The proposed amendment will 

continue to ensure that P–T limits acceptable 

to the NRC staff are employed at Monticello. 

There will be no design change associated 

with the proposed amendment. Thus, 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 approved 

P–T limits, the proposed amendment, which 

will require operation within approved P–T 

limits, 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 safety function of the P–T limits, or any 

plant system, structure, or component (SSC) 

previously evaluated. The proposed 

amendment does not involve installation of 

any new SSC, and the existing installed SSC 

will not be operated in a new or different 

manner. The relocated P–T limit 

requirements will continue to protect the 

RCPB against brittle failures. No setpoints 

will be changed which would alter the 

dynamic response of plant equipment. 

Accordingly, no new failure modes are 

introduced. The proposed amendment, 

therefore, 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. 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. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: 

December 23, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

incorporate a new Radial Peaking Factor 

definition and to clarify Limiting 

Condition for Operation 2.10.2(6), 

‘‘Shutdown CEA [Control Element 

Assembly] Insertion Limit During Power 

Operation.’’ 

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.] 

There are no changes in plant systems, 

plant control operating procedures or 

instrument alarm or trip settings associated 

with this LAR [license amendment request]. 

Because neither physical equipment nor 

operating methods for that equipment 

change, the probability of accident initiation 

does not change. Therefore, the proposed TS 

change does not does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The Unrodded Integrated Radial Peaking 

factor (FR) has been used in past safety 

analyses and radiological consequence 

analyses. These analyses utilized the 

assumption that FR would remain within the 

TS limit during plant operations. These 

analyses verify, for anticipated operational 

occurrences (AOO) and postulated accidents 

(PA), that: 

1. The departure from nucleate boiling 

ratio (DNBR) remains above the appropriate 

TS Safety Limit, and 

2. The calculated offsite doses and control 

room dose for the affected events remain 

within the guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67, 10 

CFR 100, and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, 

General Design Criteria (GDC) 19, ‘‘Control 

room.’’ 

All current safety analysis calculations are 

performed using the Maximum Radial 

Peaking Factor (FRT) limit (which remains 

unchanged), without exceeding the specified 

Safety Limits. The radiological consequence 

events have used the FRT limit to determine 

the source strength. 

Because the results of the transient 

analyses meet the Safety Limits, and because 

the dose consequences of all analyzed events 

are within the guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67, 10 

CFR 100, and GDC 19, the proposed LAR 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The remaining changes are administrative 

or editorial in nature. Therefore, operation of 

the plant in accordance with the proposed TS 

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.] 

Operation of the plant in accordance with 

the proposed TS does not add any new 

equipment, settings, or alter any plant 

operating practices. The Unrodded Integrated 

Radial Peaking Factor (FR) is a peaking factor 

no longer used in core design or safety 

analyses. The definition of ‘‘Maximum Radial 

Peaking Factor’’ (FRT) is incorporated into 

the TS and current requirements for, and 

references to FRT, are revised accordingly to 

reflect modern day incore monitoring 

systems. The remaining changes are 

administrative or editorial in nature. Since 

there are no changes in operating plant 

equipment, settings, or normal operating 

practices, operation in accordance with the 

proposed TS 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 disposition of the [Updated Final 

Safety Analysis] Chapter 14 events, the 

setpoint verification, the fuel centerline melt 

(FCM) and the minimum DNBR analyses will 

continue to use the Maximum Radial Peaking 

Factor in accordance with approved 

methods. A detailed XCOBRA–IIIC model, 

which incorporates the limiting radial and 

axial power distributions, is applied to pretrip departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) 

event analyses to determine the minimum 

DNBR values for limiting AOOs and PAs 

with the high thermal performance (HTP) 

DNB correlation. A post-trip event (Main 

Steam Line Break) has all CEAs inserted 

except for the most reactive CEA, and 

therefore has different radial and axial power 

distributions to which the Core Operating 

Limits Report (COLR) FRT limit does not 

apply. The calculated results for the limiting 

events meet the Safety Limits specified in the 

TS. A simplified XCOBRA–IIIC model is 

used in the verification of the plant 

protection system setpoints. 

Therefore, operation of the plant in 

accordance with the proposed TS does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22817 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, 

Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) 

Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: February 

14, 2012, and revised on March 12, 

2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed changes would amend 

Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and 

NPF–92 for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, 

respectively, in regard to the structural 

module stud size and spacing by 

increasing the carbon steel vertical stud 

spacing, decreasing the stainless steel 

stud diameter, and decreasing the 

stainless steel vertical and horizontal 

stud spacing in accordance with the 

design basis. The departure from Tier 2* 

information involves changes to Sheet 1 

of plant-specific Design Control 

Document Figure 3.8.3–8. 

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 design function of the containment 

modules is to support the reactor coolant 

system components and related piping 

systems and equipment. The design 

functions of the affected structural module in 

the auxiliary building are to provide support 

and protection for new and spent fuel and 

the equipment needed to support fuel 

handling, cooling, and storage in the spent 

fuel racks, and to provide support, 

protection, and separation for the seismic 

Category I mechanical and electrical 

equipment located outside the containment 

building. The design function of the shear 

studs is to transfer loads into the concrete of 

the structural modules. The proposed change 

corrects a drawing note regarding shear stud 

size and spacing for structural wall modules 

to be consistent with the underlying design 

basis calculations, which are more 

conservative. The thickness, geometry, and 

strength of the structures are not adversely 

altered. The properties of the concrete 

included in the modules are not altered. As 

a result, the design function of the structural 

modules is not adversely affected by the 

proposed change. There is no change to plant 

systems or the response of systems to 

postulated accident conditions. There is no 

change to the predicted radioactive releases 

due to normal operation or postulated 

accident conditions. The plant response to 

previously evaluated accidents or external 

events is not adversely affected, nor does the 

change described create any new accident 

precursors. Therefore, there is no 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 corrects a drawing 

note regarding shear stud size and spacing for 

structural wall modules to be consistent with 

the underlying design basis calculations. 

Stud spacing and sizing are updated such 

that stud loadings are within acceptable 

limits and that the structural module acts in 

a composite manner. The thickness, 

geometry, and strength of the structures are 

not adversely altered. The material and 

thickness of the steel plates are not altered. 

The properties of the concrete included in 

the modules are not altered. The change to 

the internal design of the structural modules 

does not create any new accident precursors. 

As a result, the design function of the 

modules is not adversely affected by the 

proposed change. Therefore, the proposed 

change will not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No 

The criteria and requirements of the 

[American Institute of Steel Construction 

(AISC) Code] AISC–N690 provide a margin of 

safety to structural failure. The design of the 

shear studs for the structural wall modules 

conforms to criteria and requirements in 

AISC–N690 and therefore maintains the 

margin of safety. The proposed change 

corrects a drawing note regarding shear stud 

size and spacing for the structural wall 

modules so as to be consistent with the 

underlying design basis calculations. There 

was no change to the method of evaluation 

from that used in the design basis 

calculations. Therefore, the proposed change 

will not result in a significant reduction in 

a margin of safety in the design and analysis 

of the structural modules, including the 

containment internal structures and module 

CA20 in the auxiliary building. 

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. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Mark E. Tonacci. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22818 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

Carolina Power and Light Company, 

Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson 

Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2, 

Darlington County, South Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

January 20, 2011, as supplemented by 

letter dated February 23, 2012. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel 

Oil and Starting Air,’’ Condition D, 

changing the emergency diesel generator 

starting air receiver low air pressure 

limit from 100 pounds per square inch 

gauge (psig) to 150 psig, and corrects an 

editorial error related to the numbering 

format in TS 3.8.5, ‘‘DC Sources— 

Shutdown,’’ Limiting Condition for 

Operation (LCO) Condition A, Required 

Action, from A.1.1 to A.1. 

Date of issuance: March 30, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 228. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–23. The amendment revised 

the TSs and the Facility Operating 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21922). 

The February 23, 2012, supplement 

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 initial proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Carolina Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris 

Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham 

Counties, North Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

January 13, 2011, as supplemented by 

letters dated October 6, 2011, February 

24, and March 20, 2012. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.3.1 ‘‘Fuel 

Assemblies’’ to change the description 

of fuel assemblies and added the 

AREVA NP Inc. Topical Report BAW– 

10240(P)–A, ‘‘Incorporation of M5TM

Properties in Framatome ANP Approved 

Methods,’’ to the analytical methods 

referenced in TS 6.9.1.6. ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report.’’ The 

amendment also deletes existing 

analytical methodologies that are no 

longer planned to be used by the 

licensee in TS 6.9.1.6.2 to allow the use 

of M5TM alloy for fuel rod cladding in 

future operating cycles. 

Date of issuance: March 30, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No. 137. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–63. Amendment revised the 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21922). 

The October 6, 2011, February 24, and 

March 20, 2012, supplements 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 initial 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated March 30, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket 

No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power Station, 

Kewaunee County, Wisconsin 

Date of application for amendment: 

May 9, 2011, as supplemented by letters 

dated June 30, and October 31, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the current licensing 

basis regarding the manner in which 

service water is supplied to the 

component cooling heat exchangers by 

the main return valves and the bypass 

flow control valves. 

Date of issuance: March 28, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 211. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

43: The amendment revised the 

Updated Safety Analysis Report. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR 

67487). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 3, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Facility Operating 

License No. NPF–21 for the Columbia 

Generating Station. The changes either 

delete or modify existing license 

conditions which have been completed, 

modified, or are otherwise no longer in 

effect. The proposed changes were 

requested in order to support the 

Columbia license renewal effort. 

Date of issuance: March 30, 2012. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 223. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

21: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31372). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy 

Resources, Inc., South Mississippi 

Electric Power Association, and Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 

(GGNS), Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of application for amendment: 

November 3, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated February 8, 2010, May 18, 

2010, June 3, 2010, June 18, 2010, July 

29, 2010, September 29, 2010, December 

13, 2010, December 14, 2010, May 3, 

2011, May 16, 2011, May 26, 2011, May 

31, 2011, June 13, 2011, June 28, 2011, 

July 22, 2011, September 28, 2011, 

October 18, 2011, October 26, 2011, 

November 8, 2011, and December 1, 

2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to reflect 

replacement of the existing Average 

Power Range Monitor (APRM), Local 

Power Range Monitor, and Flow Unit 

subsystems of the Neutron Monitoring 

System with a digital General Electric 

Hitachi Nuclear Measurement Analysis 

and Control (NUMAC) Power Range 

Neutron Monitoring System (PRNMS). 

The replacement system will also 

change GGNS’s Oscillating Power Range 

Monitoring (OPRM) function from an 

Enhanced Option 1 A solution to Option 

III, which provides an automatic 

instability detect-and-suppress longterm reactor core stability solution. 

These changes are based on prior NRC 

approvals of licensing topical reports for 

NUMAC-based PRNMS equipment and 

other power plant experiences when 

performing similar changes. In addition, 

the amendment added a provision to the 

facility operating license that allows a 

monitoring period for the APRM scram 

function 2.f, ‘‘OPRM Upscale,’’ before 

this function’s trip output to the reactor 

protection system trip system would be 

enabled. This license provision allows 

the limiting conditions for operation 

(LCOs) that would otherwise be 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22819 

associated with the ‘‘OPRM Upscale’’ 

function 2.f to be deferred until the 

monitoring period is complete and the 

OPRM trip output is permanently 

enabled. The amendment also revised 

the TSs in accordance with Technical 

Specification Task Force Traveler 

(TSTF) TSTF–493, Revision 4, ‘‘Clarify 

Application of Setpoint Methodology 

for LSSS [limiting safety system 

settings] Functions,’’ to add surveillance 

notes in accordance with option A of 

TSTF 493, Revision 4, to address 

instrumentation LCO issues that could 

occur during periodic testing and 

calibration of instrumentation. 

Date of issuance: March 28, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to startup from refueling outage 

number 18. 

Amendment No: 188. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

29: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 5, 2010 (75 FR 462). 

The supplemental letters dated February 

8, 2010, May 18, 2010, June 3, 2010, 

June 18, 2010, July 29, 2010, September 

29, 2010, December 13, 2010, December 

14, 2010, May 3, 2011, May 16, 2011, 

May 31, 2011, June 13, 2011, June 28, 

2011, July 22, 2011, September 28, 2011, 

October 18, 2011, October 26, 2011, 

November 8, 2011, and December 1, 

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 March 28, 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 14, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.4.3.1, ‘‘Leakage 

Detection Systems,’’ for Limerick 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, to 

support the addition of an alternative 

method of verifying that unidentified 

leakage in the drywell is within limits. 

The alternate method uses the installed 

drywell equipment drain sump 

(DWEDS) monitoring system, with the 

drywell floor drain sump (DWFDS) 

overflowing to the DWEDS, to verify 

that Reactor Coolant System leakage in 

the drywell is within limits. This 

configuration would only be used when 

the DWFDS monitoring system is 

unavailable. 

Date of issuance: March 29, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 208 and 169. 

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 48912). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in Safety 

Evaluation dated March 29, 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. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of application for amendments: 

March 31, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: 

These amendments would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to define 

a new time limit for restoring inoperable 

Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage 

detection instrumentation to operable 

status; establish alternate methods of 

monitoring RCS leakage when one or 

more required monitors are inoperable; 

and make TS Bases changes that reflect 

the proposed changes and more 

accurately reflect the contents of the 

facility design basis related to 

operability of the RCS leakage detection 

instrumentation. Insofar as the St. Lucie 

Plant has custom TSs and TS Bases, to 

the extent practical, these changes are 

consistent with the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission approved 

Revision 3 to TS Task Force Improved 

Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF– 

513, ‘‘Revise PWR [pressurized-water 

reactor] Operability Requirements and 

Actions for RCS Leakage 

Instrumentation.’’ The availability of 

this TS improvement was announced in 

the Federal Register on January 3, 2011 

(76 FR 189), as part of the consolidated 

line item improvement process. 

Date of Issuance: March 30, 2012. 

Effective Date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—212 and 

Unit 2—161. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31374). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012. 

Florida Power and Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey 

Point Plant, and Unit Nos. 3 and 4, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 16, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 18, 2011, August 1, 

2011, October 27, 2011, and March 13, 

2012. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specification requirements related to 

control room envelope habitability in 

accordance with Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change 

Traveler TSTF–448, Revision 3, 

‘‘Control Room Habitability.’’ TSTF–448 

was made available by the NRC on 

January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022) as part of 

the consolidated line item improvement 

process. 

Date of issuance: March 30, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos: Unit 3—248 and 

Unit 4—244. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments 

revised the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 25, 2011 (76 FR 

4386). The supplements dated July 18, 

2011, August 1, 2011, October 27, 2011, 

and March 13, 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 determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 28, 2011, as supplemented by 

letter dated February 5, 2012. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

[Alternating Current] Sources— 

Operating,’’ to incorporate Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) change 

traveler TSTF–163, Revision 2, 

‘‘Minimum vs. Steady State Voltage and 

Frequency,’’ dated April 22, 1998. The 

amendments also revised the Final 

Safety Analysis Report Update (FSAR 

Update) to identify an exception to 

Revision 0 of NRC Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 1.9, ‘‘Application and Testing of 

Safety-Related Diesel Generators in 

Nuclear Power Plants’’ (issued as NRC 

Safety Guide 9, ‘‘Selection of Diesel 

Generator Set Capacity for Standby 

Power Supplies,’’ dated March 10, 

1971). 

The TS 3.8.1 surveillance 

requirements were revised per TSTF– 

163, Revision 2, to verify minimum 

frequency and voltage, and steady state 

frequency and voltage within limits 

following diesel generator start. The 

FSAR Update is revised to specify an 

exception to RG 1.9, Revision 0, 

Regulatory Position C.4, for frequency 

recovery for the Auxiliary Feedwater 

pump loading for DGs 1–1, 1–3, 2–2, 

and 2–3. 

Date of issuance: March 29, 2012. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. Implementation of the 

amendments shall also include revision 

of the Final Safety Analysis Report 

Update as described in the licensee’s 

letter dated March 28, 2011. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—211; Unit 

2—213. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

80 and DPR–82: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31375). 

The supplemental letter dated February 

5, 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 determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 29, 2011, as supplemented 

October 21, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment t: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specification (TS) section 3.4.15 RCS 

Reactor Coolant System Leakage 

Detection Instrumentation, in 

accordance with the Technical 

Specification Task Force Traveler 

TSTF–513–A, Revision 3, titled ‘‘Revise 

PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] 

Operability Requirements and Actions 

for RCS Leakage [detection] 

Instrumentation.’’ Specifically, the 

proposed amendment would revise the 

TS to define a new time limit for 

restoring inoperable RCS leakage 

detection instrumentation to operable 

status and establish alternate methods of 

monitoring RCS leakage when one or 

more required monitors are inoperable. 

Date of Issuance: March 20, 2012. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos: Unit 1—187 and 

Unit 2—182. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: Amendment 

revises the Licenses and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of notice in Federal Register: 

June 14, 2011 (76 FR 34768). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 20, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: April 22, 

2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approved changes to 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.3, ‘‘Unit 

Staff Qualifications,’’ by making two 

administrative changes to TS 5.3.1.1. 

Specifically, the changes removed the 

operator license applicants’ education 

and experience eligibility requirements, 

and corrected inadvertent omissions in 

previous amendments relative to the 

Licensed Operators’ and Senior 

Operators’ qualification requirements. 

Date of issuance: April 2, 2012. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

its issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 198. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–42. The amendment revised 

the Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 23, 2011 (76 FR 

52705). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2012. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses and Final 

Determination of No Significant 

Hazards Consideration and 

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent 

Public Announcement or Emergency 

Circumstances) 

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 for the 

amendment 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. 

Because of exigent or emergency 

circumstances associated with the date 

the amendment was needed, there was 

not time for the Commission to publish, 

for public comment before issuance, its 

usual notice of consideration of 

issuance of amendment, proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination, and opportunity for a 

hearing. 

For exigent circumstances, the 

Commission has either issued a Federal 

Register notice providing opportunity 

for public comment or has used local 

media to provide notice to the public in 

the area surrounding a licensee’s facility 

of the licensee’s application and of the 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22821 

1To the extent that the applications contain 

attachments and supporting documents that are not 

publicly available because they are asserted to 

contain safeguards or proprietary information, 

petitioners desiring access to this information 

should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel 

and discuss the need for a protective order. 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

The Commission has applied the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made 

a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The basis for this 

determination is contained in the 

documents related to this action. 

Accordingly, the amendments have 

been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 application for 

amendment, (2) the amendment to 

Facility Operating License or Combined 

License, as applicable, 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 Reference 

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 

or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

The Commission is also offering an 

opportunity for a hearing with respect to 

the issuance of the amendment. 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, and 

electronically on the Internet at the NRC 

Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 

problems in accessing the document, 

contact the PDR’s Reference staff at 1– 

800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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 petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

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.1

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 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. 

Each contention shall be given a 

separate numeric or alpha designation 

within one of the following groups: 

1. Technical—primarily concerns/ 

issues relating to technical and/or 

health and safety matters discussed or 

referenced in the applications. 

2. Environmental—primarily 

concerns/issues relating to matters 

discussed or referenced in the 

environmental analysis for the 

applications. 

3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into 

one of the categories outlined above. 

As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two 

or more petitioners/requestors seek to 

co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/ 

requestors shall jointly designate a 

representative who shall have the 

authority to act for the petitioners/ 

requestors with respect to that 

contention. If a requestor/petitioner 

seeks to adopt the contention of another 

sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the 

requestor/petitioner who seeks to adopt 

the contention must either agree that the 

sponsoring requestor/petitioner shall act 

as the representative with respect to that 

contention, or jointly designate with the 

sponsoring requestor/petitioner a 

representative who shall have the 

authority to act for the petitioners/ 

requestors with respect to that 

contention. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. Since the Commission has 

made a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, if a hearing is 

requested, it will not stay the 

effectiveness of the amendment. Any 

hearing held would take place while the 

amendment is in effect. 

All documents filed in the 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 

information (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 

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 NRC’s 

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

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

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through 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 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/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 firstclass 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. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: February 

28, as supplemented March 2 and 

March 9, 2012. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment revised the FNP 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22823 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.4, 

‘‘Refueling Water Storage Tank,’’ to 

permit the use of a seismically qualified 

boundary valve under administrative 

controls for limited periods of time. 

Date of issuance: March 24, 2012. 

Effective date: April 23, 2012. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—188 and 

Unit 2—183. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: Amendment 

revises the technical specifications. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): Yes. 77 FR 

14441. The notice provided an 

opportunity to submit comments on the 

Commission’s proposed NSHC 

determination. No comments have been 

received. The notice also provided an 

opportunity to request a hearing by May 

8, 2012, but indicated that if the 

Commission makes a final NSHC 

determination, any such hearing would 

take place after issuance of the 

amendment. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of exigent 

circumstances, state consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated March 24, 

2012. 

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch and Bingham Law Firm, 

P.O. Box 306, Birmingham, Alabama 

35201. 

NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of April 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Allen G. Howe, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9169 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2012–0002] 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATE: Weeks of April 16, 23, 30, May 7, 

14, 21, 2012. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of April 16, 2012 

Monday, April 16, 2012 

9 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public 

Meeting) (Tentative). 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4) Docket Nos. 52–025– 

COL & 52–026–COL, Petitioners’ 

Stay Motion (Feb. 9, 2012) 

(Tentative). 

Week of April 23, 2012—Tentative 

Tuesday, April 24, 2012 

9 a.m. Briefing on Part 35 Medical 

Events Definitions—Permanent 

Implant Brachytherapy (Public 

Meeting) (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. 

Week of May 14, 2012—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of May 14, 2012. 

Week of May 21, 2012—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of May 21, 2012. 

* 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. 

Additional Information 

By a vote of 5–0 on April 12, 2012, 

the Commission determined pursuant to 

U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the 

Commission’s rules that the above 

referenced Affirmation be held on April 

16, 2012, with less than one week notice 

to the public. 

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: April 12, 2012. 

Richard J. Laufer, 

Technical Coordinator, Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9316 Filed 4–13–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Sunshine Act Meetings; Board of 

Governors 

DATES AND TIMES: Thursday, May 3, 

2012, at 10 a.m.; and Friday, May 4, at 

8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. 

PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal 

Service Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., in the Benjamin Franklin 

Room. 

STATUS: Thursday, May 3 at 10 a.m.— 

Closed; Friday, May 4 at 8:30 a.m.— 

Open; and at 10:30 a.m.—Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Thursday, May 3 at 10 a.m. (Closed) 

1. Strategic Issues. 

2. Financial Matters. 

3. Pricing. 

4. Personnel Matters and 

Compensation Issues. 

5. Governors’ Executive Session— 

Discussion of prior agenda items and 

Board Governance. 

Friday, May 4 at 8:30 a.m. (Open) 

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous 

Meetings. 

2. Remarks of the Chairman of the 

Board. 

3. Remarks of the Postmaster General 

and CEO. 

4. Committee Reports. 

5. Quarterly Report on Financial 

Performance. 

6. Quarterly Report on Service 

Performance. 

7. Tentative Agenda for the June 14, 

2012, meeting in Washington, DC. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES