[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64359-64366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26152]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0327]


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

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from September 23, 2010 to October 6, 2010. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 5, 2010, (75 FR 61521).

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; 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.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the 
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. 
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in 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 Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 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

[[Page 64360]]

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, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request 
(1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in 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 EIE, users will be required to install a Web 
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser 
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail 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

[[Page 64361]]

contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' 
link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at [email protected], or by a toll-free 
call at (866) 672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 
excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants 
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as 
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their 
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of 
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited 
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, 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 e-mail to [email protected].

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: August 27, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
methodology in the feedwater line break with loss of offsite power and 
single failure event (FWLB/LOP/SF) analysis summarized in the Palo 
Verde Nuclear Generating Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 
The revision would change the credited operator action time to 20 
minutes from 30 minutes to control the pressurizer level.
    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 change in the credited operator action time to 20 
minutes from 30 minutes does not change the probability of a FWLB/
LOP/SF event as the operator actions are credited after the start of 
the event.
    This change in operator action time does not adversely affect 
accident initiators or precursors, the ability of structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended functions 
to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the 
assumed acceptance limits, or radiological release assumptions used 
in evaluating the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change in the credited operator action time to 20 
minutes from 30 minutes does not involve any design or physical 
changes to the facility or any SSC of that facility. The proposed 
change does not create any new failure modes or adversely affect the 
interaction between any structure, system or component.
    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 change in the credited operator action time to 20 
minutes from 30 minutes does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. No changes 
to instrument/system actuation setpoints are involved. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by this change and the 
proposed change will not permit plant operation in a configuration 
outside the design basis. The assumed 20 minutes for operator action 
is consistent with Industry and NRC guidance.
    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 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, 
Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: August 5, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise technical specification (TS) 5.5.1 Fuel Storage--Criticality, to 
include new spent fuel storage patterns that account for both the 
increase in fuel maximum enrichment from 4.5 weight

[[Page 64362]]

percentage (wt%) U-235 to 5.0 wt% U-235 and the impact on the fuel of 
higher power operation proposed under the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) 
project. Although the fuel storage has been analyzed at the higher fuel 
enrichment in the new criticality analysis, the fuel enrichment limit 
of 4.5 wt% U-235 specified in TS 5.5.1 will not be changed under this 
license amendment request. The proposed TS changes and a new supporting 
criticality analysis are being submitted to revise the current 
licensing basis analysis for both new fuel and spent fuel pool storage.
    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?
    No. The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, 
fuel handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel 
assemblies that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay 
heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup 
system. The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the 
following previously evaluated events and accidents:
    a. A fuel handling accident (FHA),
    b. A cask drop accident,
    c. A fuel mispositioning event,
    d. A spent fuel pool boron dilution event,
    e. A seismic event, and
    f. A loss of spent fuel pool cooling event.
    Although the proposed amendment will require increased handling 
of the fuel, the probability of a FHA is not significantly increased 
because the implementation of the proposed amendment will employ the 
same equipment and process to handle fuel assemblies that is 
currently used. Also, tests have confirmed that the Metamic inserts 
can be installed and removed without damaging the host fuel 
assemblies. The FHA radiological dose consequences associated with 
fuel enrichment at this level were addressed in LAR [license 
amendment request] 196 on Alternative Source Term implementation at 
EPU conditions and remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed 
amendments do not significantly increase the probability or 
consequences of a FHA.
    The proposed amendments do not increase the probability of 
dropping a fuel transfer cask because they do not introduce any new 
heavy loads to the SFP and do not affect heavy load handling 
processes. Also, the insertion of Metamic rack inserts does not 
increase the consequences of the cask drop accident because the 
radiological source term of that accident is developed from a non-
mechanistically derived quantity of damaged fuel stored in the spent 
fuel pool. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of a cask drop accident.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a fuel mispositioning event because fuel 
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling 
procedures. These procedures continue to require identification of 
the initial and target locations for each fuel assembly that is 
moved. The consequences of a fuel mispositioning event are not 
changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same 
subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for the 
worst-case fuel mispositioning event.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a boron dilution event because the systems 
and events that could affect spent fuel pool soluble boron are 
unchanged. The consequences of a boron dilution event are unchanged 
because the proposed amendment reduces the soluble boron requirement 
below the currently required value and the maximum possible water 
volume displaced by the inserts is an insignificant fraction of the 
total spent fuel pool water volume.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a seismic event. The consequences of a 
seismic event are not significantly increased because the forcing 
functions for seismic excitation are not increased and because the 
mass of storage racks with Metamic inserts is not appreciably 
increased. Seismic analyses demonstrate adequate stress levels in 
the storage racks when inserts are installed.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a loss of SFP cooling event because the 
systems and events that could affect SFP cooling are unchanged. The 
consequences are not significantly increased because there are no 
changes in the SFP heat load or SFP cooling systems, structures or 
components. Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate that the 
current design requirements and criteria continue to be met with the 
Metamic inserts installed.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    No. The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, 
fuel handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that 
may be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent 
fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. The effects of operating with 
the proposed amendment are listed below. The proposed amendments 
were evaluated for the potential of each effect to create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident:
    a. Addition of inserts to the fuel storage racks,
    b. New storage patterns,
    c. Additional weight from the inserts,
    d. Insert movement above fuel, and
    e. Displacement of fuel pool water by the inserts.
    Each insert will be placed between a fuel assembly and the 
storage cell wall, taking up some of the space available on two 
sides of the fuel assembly. Tests confirm that the insert can be 
installed and removed without damaging the fuel assembly. Analyses 
demonstrate that the presence of the inserts does not adversely 
affect spent fuel cooling, seismic capability, or subcriticality. 
The aluminum (alloy 6061) and boron carbide materials of 
construction have been shown to be compatible with nuclear fuel, 
storage racks and spent fuel pool environments, and generate no 
adverse material interactions. Therefore, placing the inserts into 
the spent fuel pool storage racks cannot cause a new or different 
kind of accident.
    Operation with the proposed fuel storage patterns will not 
create a new or different kind of accident because fuel movement 
will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. 
These procedures continue to require identification of the initial 
and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved. There are 
no changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel 
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements, and analyses 
demonstrate that the proposed storage patterns meet these 
requirements and criteria with adequate margins. Therefore, the 
proposed storage patterns cannot cause a new or different kind of 
accident.
    Operation with the added weight of the Metamic inserts will not 
create a new or different accident. The net effect of the adding the 
maximum number of inserts is to add less than one percent to the 
weight of the loaded racks. Furthermore, the analyses of the racks 
with Metamic inserts installed demonstrate that the stress levels in 
the rack modules continue to be considerably less than allowable 
stress limits. Therefore, the added weight from the inserts cannot 
cause a new or different kind of accident.
    Operation with insert movement above stored fuel will not create 
a new or different kind of accident. The insert with its handling 
tool weighs considerably less than the weight of a single fuel 
assembly. Single fuel assemblies are routinely moved safely over 
fuel assemblies and the same level of safety in design and operation 
will be maintained when moving the inserts. Furthermore, the effect 
of a dropped insert to block the top of a storage cell has been 
evaluated in thermal-hydraulic analyses. Therefore, the movement of 
inserts cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
    Whereas the installed rack inserts will displace a very small 
fraction of the fuel pool water volume and impose a very small 
reduction in operator response time to previously-evaluated SFP 
accidents, the reduction will not promote a new or different kind of 
accident. Also, displacement of water along two sides of a stored 
fuel assembly may have some local reduction in the peripheral 
cooling flow; however, this effect would be small compared to the 
flow induced through the fuel assembly and would in no way promote a 
new or different kind of accident.
    The accidents and events previously analyzed and presented in 
the Boraflex Remedy and Alternative Source Term LARs remain 
bounding. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

[[Page 64363]]

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    No. The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current 
margins of safety as they relate to criticality, structural 
integrity, and spent fuel heat removal capability.
    The margin of safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR 
50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. New criticality analysis confirms that 
operation in accordance with the proposed amendment continues to 
meet the required subcriticality margins.
    The structural evaluations for the racks and spent fuel pool 
with Metamic inserts installed show that the rack and spent fuel 
pool are unimpaired by loading combinations during seismic motion, 
and there is no adverse seismic-induced interaction between the rack 
and Metamic inserts.
    The proposed change does not affect spent fuel heat generation 
or the spent fuel pool cooling systems. A conservative analysis 
indicates that the design basis requirements and criteria for spent 
fuel cooling continue to be met with the Metamic inserts in place, 
and displacing coolant. Thermal hydraulic analysis of the local 
effects of an installed rack insert blocking peripheral flow show a 
small increase in local water and fuel clad temperatures, but will 
remain within acceptable limits including no departure from nucleate 
boiling.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    Based on the above discussion, FPL has determined that the 
proposed change does not involve a significant hazards 
consideration.

    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: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, 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 e-mail to [email protected].

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of application for amendment: September 28, 2009, as 
supplemented by letters dated June 24 and September 3 and 24, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Required 
Action A.1 of Technical Specification 3.8.7, ``Inverters--Operating,'' 
for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, by 
extending the Completion Time for restoration of an inoperable vital 
alternating current inverter from 24 hours to 7 days.
    Date of issuance: September 29, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--180; Unit 2--180; Unit 3--180.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The 
amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR 
62833). The supplemental letters dated June 24 and September 3 and 24, 
2010, 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 September 29, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-414, Catawba Nuclear 
Station, Unit 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: April 28, 2010, as supplemented 
by letter dated September 9, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.9 to exclude portions of the Steam Generator 
(SG) tube from periodic SG tube inspections and plugging or repair. In 
addition, reporting requirement changes were made to TS 5.6.8.
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to requiring the SGs to be operable at the completion of the End 
of Cycle 17 Refueling Outage.
    Amendment No.: 257.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-52: Amendment revised 
the license and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR 
39977). The supplement dated September 9, 2010, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 64364]]

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

    Date of application for amendment: April 21, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated July 28 and September 2, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised James A. 
FitzPatrick Technical Specification (TS) 2.0, ``Safety Limits (SLs).'' 
Specifically, TS 2.1.1.2 replaced the listed safety limit minimum 
critical power ratio values of 1.07 for two recirculation loop 
operation and 1.09 for single recirculation loop operation with new 
values of 1.08 and 1.11, respectively.
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 299.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR 
33841).
    The supplements dated July 28 and September 2, 2010, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generating Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendment: October 30, 2009, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 16, 2010, and August 31, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Oyster 
Creek Technical Specifications to relocate a number of Surveillance 
Requirement frequencies to a licensee-controlled document.
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 276.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment 
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (74 
FR 68869). The supplements dated April 16, 2010, and August 31, 2010, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-
277, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 2, York and 
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: May 27, 2010, as supplemented 
on July 15, 2010, and August 25, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment modifies the PBAPS 
Unit 2 Technical Specification (TS) Section 2.1.1.2 to reflect revised 
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values for operating 
cycle 19. The SLMCPR analysis establishes SLMCPR values that will 
ensure that during normal operation and during abnormal operational 
transients, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not 
experience transition boiling if the limit is not violated.
    Date of issuance: September 28, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 279.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-44: Amendment revised 
the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 26, 2010 (75 FR 
43574).
    The supplements dated July 15, 2010, and August 25, 2010, clarified 
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as 
originally noticed, and did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 2010.
    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 amendments: June 14, 2010, as supplemented 
on August 9, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
licensing basis, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report 
Update, to include damping values for the seismic design and analysis 
of the integrated head assembly (IHA) that are consistent with the 
recommendations of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.61, ``Damping Values for 
Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 1. In addition, the 
RG 1.61, Revision 1, Table 1 note allowing the use of a ``weighted 
average'' for design-basis safe-shutdown earthquake damping values 
applicable to steel structures of different connection types will also 
be applied to determine the IHA design-basis operating-basis earthquake 
damping values.
    Date of issuance: September 29, 2010.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--208; Unit 2--210.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (75 FR 
44025). The supplemental letter dated August 9, 2010, 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 September 29, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendment: December 1, 2009, as 
supplemented by letters dated July 23, and August 19, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Revise the required frequency of testing 
control rod scram times from ``at least once per 120 days of POWER 
OPERATION'' to ``at

[[Page 64365]]

least once per 200 days of POWER OPERATION''; (2) revise the evaluation 
methodology for control rod scram time tests; (3) establish a new 
category of operable but ``slow'' control rods; and (4) establish 
allowable limits for the number and distribution of ``slow'' rods. The 
changes are based, in part, on Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved 
TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-460, ``Control Rod Scram Time 
Testing Frequency.''
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 183.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
TSs and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 26, 2010 (75 FR 
4119).
    The letters dated July 23, and August 19, 2010, provided clarifying 
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant 
hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond 
the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna 
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: November 30, 2009, as 
supplemented by letter dated May 14, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment provides 
authorization to upgrade selected Emergency Action Levels based on 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, ``Methodology for Development of 
Emergency Action Levels,'' Revision 5, dated February 2008 using the 
guidance of NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-18, Supplement 2, ``Use 
of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Methodology for Development of 
Emergency Action Levels.''
    Date of issuance: October 6, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment No.: 111.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised 
the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (75 FR 
6411).
    The letter dated May 14, 2010, 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 October 6, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: February 17, 2009, as 
supplemented on June 15, December 1, and December 23, 2009, January 14, 
and July 16, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the technical 
specification changes and design-basis accident radiological 
consequence analyses to support implementation of alternative source 
term methodology, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.67, ``Accident source term,'' using 
the guidance described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative 
Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design-basis Accidents at 
Nuclear Power Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: October 4, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 183.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises 
the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (74 FR 
12395).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of application for amendments: January 27, 2010, as 
supplemented by letters dated February 4 and April 29, 2010.
    Brief Description of amendments: These amendments would increase 
each unit's rated power (RP) level from 2546 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 
2587 MWt, and make Technical Specifications changes as necessary to 
support operation at the uprated power level. The proposed change is an 
increase in RP of approximately 1.6 percent.
    Date of issuance: September 28, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 269 and 268.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments change the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 
17447).
    The supplements provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand in the scope of the application as 
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 24, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: December 16, 2009 as supplemented by 
letter dated June 2, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the licensing 
basis for the approved fire protection program as described in the Wolf 
Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) 
to allow use of the fire-resistive cable for certain power and control 
cables associated with two motor-operated valves on Train B Component 
Cooling Water System. This is a deviation from certain technical 
commitments to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, as described in Appendix 9.5E of 
the WCGS USAR.
    Date of issuance: September 30, 2010.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 189.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment 
revised the Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 
10831). The supplemental letter dated June 2, 2010, 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

[[Page 64366]]

Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, October 7, 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-26152 Filed 10-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P