[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67399-67406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27416]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0336]


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 October 7, 2010 to October 20, 2010. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64359).

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), Sec.  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

[[Page 67400]]

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 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

[[Page 67401]]

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 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].

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
No. 1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: August 24, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.4.6, ``RCS Loops--Mode 4,'' TS 
3.4.7, ``RCS Loops--Mode 5, Loops Filled,'' TS 3.4.8, ``RCS Loops--Mode 
5, Loops Not Filled,'' and TS 3.9.5, ``Decay Heat Removal (DHR) and 
Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level,'' to permit a greater time period 
for one of two required Reactor Coolant System (RCS) cooling loops 
(commonly known as Decay Heat Removal loop) cooling loops to be 
inoperable. The affected TSs are applicable in lower Modes of Operation 
(Modes 4, 5, and 6).
    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 does not involve any physical change to the 
plant and is unrelated to accident initiators. In Mode 4, the energy 
contained in the RCS is significantly reduced from that of power 
operations. In addition, RCS pressure can be raised or lowered to 
accommodate forced circulation using Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs) or 
operation of the Decay Heat Removal (DHR) system. Natural 
circulation also provides a core heat removal method via any 
available Steam Generator (SG). Several sources of secondary 
feedwater are, or could be made available to a required SG in 
support of forced circulation or natural circulation. Based on this 
information, any mitigation strategy which assumes use of these core 
cooling methods is not significantly affected by the proposed 
increase in the time in which one required train may be inoperable.
    No accidents associated with the reactor core or core cooling 
are postulated for Mode 5. In Mode 6, the fuel handling accident 
(FHA) is the only postulated accident scenario. The proposed change 
has no bearing on the FHA from either an initiation aspect or with 
regard to accident consequences.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 67402]]

    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 only extends the period in which one of two 
required core heat removal methods may be unavailable. The proposed 
change involves no changes to the physical plant and is not 
associated with any accident initiator.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    As discussed above, the proposed change is unrelated to accident 
initiators and does not have a significant impact on the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated in the ANO-1 
Safety Analysis Report (SAR). The proposed change extends the time 
in which one of two required core heat removal methods may be 
unavailable. In most cases, more than one additional cooling method 
remains available. In addition, proceduralized administrative 
controls act to protect remaining required equipment (including 
inventory makeup sources) and to prevent removal of important 
equipment from service during higher risk plant configurations (such 
as reduced inventory conditions).
    In Mode 5 and 6, the idle cooling loop may only be made 
unavailable in support of surveillance testing and only if the 
remaining loop is operable and in operation. Additionally, the idle 
cooling loop can be made unavailable only if it can be recovered 
within the calculated time-to-boil for the most restrictive plant 
configuration that may exist during the test window. These 
restrictions, along with the information in the preceding paragraph, 
maintain a sufficient margin to safety to preclude a challenge to 
the integrity of the fuel clad.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment involves 
administrative changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs). The 
proposed changes involve: (1) Making an editorial change to LGS Unit 1 
TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.3.1, Action b; (2) making 
an editorial change to LGS Units 1 and 2 TS Table 3.3.1-1, Actions 2 
and 9; (3) making the layout and format of LGS Unit 1 TS LCO 3.6.5.3 
Action requirements consistent with the LGS Unit 2 LCO Action 
requirements for the same TS; and (4) adding a reference to the minimum 
required number of operable main turbine bypass valves and the turbine 
bypass system response time to the core operating limits documented in 
the Core Operating Limits Report as specified in LGS, Units 1 and 2, TS 
6.9.1.9.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee (Exelon) 
has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature 
and do not impact the physical configuration or function of plant 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which 
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The 
proposed changes do not impact the initiators or assumptions of 
analyzed events, nor do they impact mitigation of accidents or 
transient events.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature 
and do not alter plant configuration, require that new plant 
equipment be installed, alter assumptions made about accidents 
previously evaluated, or impact the function of plant SSCs or the 
manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature 
and do not involve any physical changes to plant SSCs or the manner 
in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or 
inspected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to any 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings, limiting conditions 
for operation, or design parameters for any SSC. The proposed 
changes do not impact any safety analysis assumptions and do not 
involve a change in initial conditions, system response times, or 
other parameters affecting an accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate 
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 11, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications (TSs), 
Appendix B. Specifically, the proposed amendment would change some 
wording to align with the Exelon Generation Company (EGC) terminology. 
Additionally, the proposed amendment would revise the description of 
the review and audit function to align with the EGC fleet model and 
relocate scope of the audit to the EGC fleet-wide Quality Assurance 
Topical Report.
    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 changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.]
    Response: No.
    The Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) are concerned 
with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on the 
environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and have 
no [effect] on any accident postulated in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or consequences are 
not affected in any way by the environmental monitoring and 
reporting required by the ETS. The revision of portions of Appendix 
B of the Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) will not impact 
the design or operation of any plant system or

[[Page 67403]]

component. No environmental protection requirements established by 
other Federal, State, or local agencies are being reduced by this 
license amendment request.
    No physical changes to Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 
(OCNGS) will occur as a result of this proposed amendment. The 
proposed changes will not alter the physical design or operational 
procedures associated with any plant structure, system, or 
component.
    The proposed changes involve the revision/relocation of 
administrative requirements from the Environmental Technical 
Specifications (ETS) that are now controlled under the EGC Quality 
Assurance Topical Report (QATR). The Technical Specification (TS) 
requirements involve Organization and Audit and Review.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. [The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.]
    Response: No.
    Environmental monitoring and reporting have no effect on 
accident initiation. The revision of portions of Appendix B of the 
OCNGS TS[s] will not impact the design or operation of any plant 
system or component. There will be no effect on the types or amount 
of any effluents released from the plant.
    The proposed changes do not alter the physical design, safety 
limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation 
of the plant. Accordingly, the changes do not introduce any new 
accident initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely [effect] the 
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform 
their safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. [The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.]
    Response: No.
    Revision of the ETS Organization and Audit and Review criteria 
in accordance with this submittal has no impact on margin of safety. 
Environmental evaluations will still be performed, when necessary, 
on changes to plant design or operations to assess the effect on 
environmental protection. Review, analysis and investigation of 
Unusual and Important Environmental Events will still be performed 
in accordance with the EGC Corrective Action Program.
    The proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory guidance 
regarding the content of plant [TSs]. The guidance is presented in 
10 CFR 50.36 and NUREG-1433. The revision of these administrative 
requirements will not reduce the quality assurance commitments as 
accepted by the NRC, nor reduce administrative controls essential to 
the safe operation of the plant. Future changes to these 
administrative requirements will be performed in accordance with NRC 
regulation 10 CFR 50.54(a), consistent with the guidance identified 
above.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it 
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. 
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: June 28, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would delete 
the Seabrook Technical Specification 3.8.4.2, ``Containment Penetration 
Conductor Overcurrent Protective Devices and Protective Devices for 
Class 1E Power Sources Connected to Non-Class 1E Circuits.'' The 
requirements would be relocated to a licensee-controlled document, the 
Technical Requirements Manual (TRM).
    Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR 
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, 
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 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 change 
neither adversely affects accident initiators or precursors, nor 
alters design assumptions. The proposed change does not alter or 
prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended 
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within 
assumed acceptance limits.
    This proposed change relocates the requirements for the 
containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices and 
the protective devices for Class 1E power sources connected to non-
Class 1E circuits to the TRM. Relocating these requirements will 
have no adverse effect on plant operation, the availability or 
operation of any accident mitigation equipment, or plant response to 
a design basis accident. The electrical protective devices are not 
accident initiators. Whether the requirements for penetration 
protective devices for 1E power sources are contained in the TS or 
the TRM has no effect on the probability or consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. 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 
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a significant 
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. 
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident. The change does not alter assumptions made 
in the safety analysis.
    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 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 change does 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 and will not relax any safety system 
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition.
    Therefore, 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: Harold K. Chernoff.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: September 17, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to amend 
the MNGP Technical Specifications, revising the values for the Minimum 
Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limits of Reactor Core Safety Limit

[[Page 67404]]

2.1.1.2. Currently this specification says ``MCPR shall be >=1.10 for 
two recirculation loop operation or >=1.12 for single recirculation 
loop operation.'' The proposed amendment will change this specification 
to read ``MCPR shall be >=1.15 for two recirculation loop operation or 
>=1.15 for single recirculation loop operation.'' The basis of the MCPR 
safety limit is to 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. The licensee's proposed MCPR safety limit values, when 
approved by the NRC staff, will preserve the existing margin to 
transition boiling, thus ensuring that the probability of fuel damage 
will not be increased.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC) analysis. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's 
NSHC analysis and has prepared its own as follows:

    (1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The purpose of the MCPR safety limits is to ensure that at least 
99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience 
transition boiling if the limit is not violated. Of the postulated 
accidents and transients previously analyzed in the MNGP Updated 
Safety Analysis Report, none of them were postulated to be initiated 
by operation within the approved MCPR safety limits. Furthermore, 
the consequences of the analyzed accidents were not postulated to be 
exacerbated by operation within approved MCPR safety limits. 
Accordingly, the probability of occurrence and the consequences of 
the previously analyzed accidents would not be affected in any way 
by the proposed amendment to the TS.
    (2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve any physical alteration 
of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) nor does it change methods and procedures governing plant 
operation. The proposed amendment will not impose any new or 
eliminate any old requirements. Therefore, the proposed amendment 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated.
    (3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment will not have any effect on 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 
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 
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: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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].

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of amendment request: December 3, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request revises 
Technical Specifications to incorporate Standard Technical 
Specification 3.1.8 ``Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) Vent and Drain 
Valves'' and associated Bases of NUREG-1433, Revision 3, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' modified to 
account for plant specific design details.
    Date of Issuance: October 6, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 244.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 
17444).
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: February 24, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted Operating 
License Condition 2.C.14, Fuel Movement in the Fuel Handling Building, 
due to the licensee's election to comply with 10 CFR 50.68, 
``Criticality accident requirements,'' of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR). License Condition 2.C.14, which 
essentially requires that no more than one fuel assembly shall be out 
of its shipping container or storage location at a given time, was one 
basis for the licensee's previous exemption from the criticality alarm 
system requirements of 10 CFR 70.24. The criticality accident 
requirements can be met either by

[[Page 67405]]

complying with 10 CFR 70.24 or 10 CFR 50.68 requirements. The 10 CFR 
50.68 criteria are now being used; therefore, License Condition 2.C.14 
is no longer required.
    Date of issuance: October 14, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 229.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (75 FR 
23813).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 14, 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: February 25, 2010, as 
supplemented by letters dated July 9, October 14, and October 15, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications to allow temporary changes to the Secondary Containment 
boundary during shutdown conditions. Specifically, the change allows 
the Reactor Building Secondary Containment boundary associated with the 
Trunnion Room to be relocated from the Trunnion Room outer wall and 
door to the Reactor Building inner walls and penetrations located 
inside the Trunnion Room.
    Date of issuance: October 18, 2010.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 277.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment 
revised the License and Technical Specifications
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (75 FR 
32513). The supplements dated July 9, October 14, and October 15, 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 October 18, 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 21, 2009, as 
supplemented by letters dated May 11, June 10, June 24, June 29, July 
28, August 3, August 12, September 10, and September 17, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows the production 
of Cobalt-60 by irradiating Cobalt-59 targets located in modified fuel 
assemblies called Isotope Test Assemblies (ITAs). The amendment allows 
up to 12 ITAs to be loaded into the reactor core beginning with the 
fall 2010 refueling outage. The modified fuel assemblies are planned to 
be in operation as part of a pilot program. The purpose of the pilot 
program is to obtain data to verify that the modified fuel assemblies 
perform satisfactorily in service prior to use on a production basis. 
The Cobalt-60 is ultimately intended for use in the medical industry 
for use in cancer treatments, and blood and instrument sterilization; 
in the radiography and security industries for imaging; and in the food 
industry for cold pasteurization and irradiation sterilization.
    Date of issuance: October 7, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 45 days.
    Amendment No.: 184.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 2, 2010 (75 FR 
9445). The letters dated May 11, June 10, June 24, June 29, July 28, 
August 3, August 12, September 10, and September 17, 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 October 7, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.

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

    Date of application for amendment: November 4, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Delete TS 4.0.5, which pertains to 
surveillance requirements for inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice 
testing (IST) of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components; (2) add a new TS for 
the IST Program to Section 6.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' of the 
TSs; (3) change TSs that currently reference TS 4.0.5 to reference the 
IST Program or ISI Program, as applicable; and (4) revise TS 6.10.3.h 
to reflect the deletion of the ISI Program from the TSs.
    Date of issuance: October 19, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 185.
    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 
4118).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 19, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
County, California

    Date of application for amendment: August 16, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' 
Condition A, to allow a one-time extension of the Completion Time (per 
train) to 10 days to restore an inoperable required offsite circuit.
    Date of issuance: October 15, 2010.
    Effective date: Upon issuance; to be implemented within 60 days of 
issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 2-224; Unit 3-217.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendment 
revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (75 
FR 54395).
    No significant hazards consideration (NSHC) comments received: No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments, state 
consultation, and final NSHC determination is contained in a Safety 
Evaluation dated October 15, 2010.
    Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
California 91770.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

[[Page 67406]]

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

    Date of application for amendments: October 16, 2009, as 
supplemented by letter dated May 7, 2010.
    Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to:
    (1) Implementation of WCAP-8745-P-A, ``Design Bases for Thermal 
Overpower Delta-T and Thermal Overtemperature Delta-T Trip Function,''
    (2) Implementation of NRC-approved Dominion Fleet Report DOM-NAF-2-
A, ``Reactor Core Thermal-Hydraulics Using the VIPRE-D Computer Code,''
    (3) Implementation of a Statistical Design Limit for the analytic 
code and critical heat flux correlations that are being used in DOM-
NAF-2-A, and
    (4) Implementation of Dominion TR VEP-NE-2-A, ``Statistical DNBR 
Evaluation Methodology.''
    The requested change also affects the facility TSs. Items 1 and 2 
in the above list are methodologies that are used in the determination 
of core operating limits; hence, items were put into the reference list 
contained in TS 6.2.C, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT.'' Additional TS 
changes are being implemented to provide consistency with the Improved 
TS format in NURG-1431, Revision 3, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' where practical, and to delete 
obsolete TS requirements.
    Date of issuance: October 19, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 270 and 269.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR 
62838). The supplement provided clarifying information that did not 
change the scope of the original application and the initial proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 19, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of October 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-27416 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P