[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34763-34770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14680]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0133]


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 to 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 May 19, 2011, to June 1, 2011. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31369).

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0133 in the subject line 
of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form 
will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web 
site, http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be 
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC 
cautions you against including any information in your submission that 
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
    The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments 
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those 
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any 
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not 
include any information in their comments that they do not want 
publicly disclosed. You may submit comments by any one of the following 
methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0133. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 
telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail: [email protected].
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    You can access publicly available documents related to this notice 
using the following methods:
     NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine 
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's 
PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC 
are available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 
which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If 
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff 
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and 
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2011-0133.

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), Section 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

[[Page 34764]]

Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The 
Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in 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 O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC 
Library on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, 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 the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in 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-

[[Page 34765]]

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://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With 
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve 
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. 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. (For more information, see 
the ADDRESSES section.)

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: March 31, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate 
certain surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program (the 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program, SFCP) in accordance with 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance 
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed Technical 
Specification Task Force] Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3 (Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 
ML090850642). The licensee proposes an administrative change to TSTF-
425, Revision 3, which would allow it to retain the definition of 
``Staggered Test Basis'' that also appears in a portion of the plants' 
technical specifications (TSs) that are not subject to TSTF-425. The 
licensee also proposes to deviate from TSTF-425 by making the changes 
recommended to the TSTF in the NRC letter dated April 14, 2010 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML100990099), regarding the TS Bases.
    The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for TSTF-425 in the 
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice included a 
model safety evaluation and a model no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC) determination. In its application dated March 31, 
2011, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC 
determination which is presented below.
    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 NSHC, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.

[[Page 34766]]

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS), 
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, [Arizona 
Public Service Company] will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation 
using the guidance contained in NRC approved [Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI)] 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 
04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines 
and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to 
surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
    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 
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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, 
Maryland

    Date of amendment requests: May 11, 2011.
    Description of amendment requests: The amendment would modify a 
note within Technical Specification 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protective System 
(RPS) Instrumentation--Operating,'' to change the value at which the 
RPS trip function, Steam Generator Pressure-Low, is bypassed from 785 
psig to 785 psia. The revision corrects an administrative error that 
occurred during Calvert Cliffs' conversion to the Standard Technical 
Specifications.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed administrative change to correct the unit of 
measure listed in note (c) of Technical Specification 3.3.1 to read 
psia vice psig does not affect any analyzed accident initiators, nor 
does it affect the unit's ability to successfully respond to any 
previously evaluated accident. In addition the proposed does not 
change the operation or maintenance that it performed on plant 
equipment.
    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 administrative change corrects the unit of measure 
listed in note (c) of Technical Specification 3.3.1 to read psia 
vice psig. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
alteration to the plant (no new or different type of equipment will 
be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation.
    Therefore it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed administrative change corrects the unit of measure 
listed in note (c) of Technical Specification 3.3.1 to read psia 
vice psig. Since this is an administrative change the safety 
functions of plant equipment and their response to any analyzed 
accident scenario are unaffected by this proposed change and thus 
there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
    Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety for the operation of each unit.

    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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear 
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 
17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (ENO) Docket No. 50-255, Palisades 
Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: April 6, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS), to allow extension of 
the ten-year plus 15-month frequency of the Palisades Nuclear Plant 
Type A, or Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) that is required by TS 
5.5.14, to 15 years on a permanent basis.
    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 amendment involves changes to the PLP [Palisades 
Nuclear Plant] containment leakage rate testing program. The 
proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the plant 
or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or 
controlled. The primary containment function is to provide an 
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of 
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, 
the containment itself and the testing requirements to periodically 
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the 
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, do not 
involve any accident precursors or initiators.
    Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed 
amendment.
    The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 
[Nuclear Energy Institute] 94-01, Revision 2-A, for development of 
the PLP performance-based testing program. Implementation of these 
guidelines continues to provide adequate assurance that during 
design basis accidents, the primary containment and its components 
would limit leakage rates to less than the values assumed in the 
plant safety analyses. The potential consequences of extending the 
ILRT interval to 15 years have been evaluated by analyzing the 
resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk in terms of person-
rem per year within 50 miles resulting from design basis accidents 
was estimated to be acceptably small and determined to be within the 
guidelines published in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, 
the proposed change maintains defense-in-depth by preserving a 
reasonable balance among prevention of core damage, prevention of 
containment failure, and consequence mitigation. ENO has determined 
that the increase in conditional containment failure probability due 
to the proposed change would be very small.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does not 
significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the

[[Page 34767]]

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 
94-01, Revision 2-A, for the development of the PLP performance-
based leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval 
for the performance of the containment ILRT. The containment and the 
testing requirements, to periodically demonstrate the integrity of 
the containment, exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident do not involve any accident precursors 
or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed) or a change to the manner in which the plant is 
operated or controlled.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 
94-01, Revision 2-A, for the development of the PLP performance-
based leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval 
for the performance of the containment ILRT. This amendment does not 
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The 
specific requirements and conditions of the containment leakage rate 
testing program, as defined in the TS, ensure that the degree of 
primary containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is 
considered in the plant's safety analysis is maintained. The overall 
containment leakage rate limit specified by the TS is maintained, 
and the Type A, Type B, and Type C containment leakage tests would 
be performed at the frequencies established in accordance with the 
NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A.
    Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant 
programs serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the 
containment would not degrade in a manner that is not detectable by 
an ILRT. A risk assessment using the current PLP PSA [probabilistic 
safety assessment] model concluded that extending the ILRT test 
interval from 10 years to 15 years results in a very small change to 
the PLP risk profile.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General 
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White 
Plains, NY 10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2011.
    Description of amendments request: The proposed licensing amendment 
request would revise the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS) 3.7.19, ``Diesel Driven EFW [Emergency Feedwater] 
(DD-EFW) Pump Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, Starting Air,'' Condition A and ITS 
Surveillance Requirement 3.7.19.1, in order to increase the ITS minimum 
required stored diesel fuel for the DD-EFW pump in the fuel oil supply 
tank.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The LAR [license amendment request] proposes to revises the 
Diesel Driven Emergency Feedwater (DD-EFW) pump (EFP-3) fuel oil 
supply tank (DFT-4) action condition and surveillance values to 
ensure that the EFW pump will remain capable of performing the 
design function of operating continuously for up to seven days. The 
proposed amendment provides the same functional requirement as 
previously approved.
    The consequences of an accident refer to the impact on both 
plant personnel and the public from any radiological release 
associated with the accident. The Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System 
removes decay heat to prevent a radiological release. A more 
conservative action condition and surveillance value restores design 
margin and provides assurance that the equipment supplied by the EFW 
System will operate correctly and within the assumed timeframe to 
perform their mitigating functions. The administrative controls that 
have been established are an acceptable short term correction along 
with this LAR. The EFW System is used for accident mitigation and is 
not an initiator of design basis accidents. Therefore, the 
probability of previously analyzed events is not affected by this 
change. No capability or design functions of EFP-3 or the EFW System 
will change. The initial conditions for accidents that require EFW 
and accident mitigation capability of the EFW System will remain 
unchanged.
    EFP-3 and DFT-4 are mitigating components and are not initiators 
for any analyzed accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) Condition 
will ensure equipment is restored to an operable status in 
accordance with previously approved timeframes and functional 
levels. The proposed Surveillance Requirement (SR) will ensure the 
same functional requirement as the previously approved SR. The more 
conservative DFT-4 tank levels will provide additional assurance 
that the EFP-3 can provide the seven day operation that is required.
    No new plant configurations or conditions are created by the 
proposed ITS Condition or SR. Therefore, the proposed amendment 
cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The proposed ITS Condition and SR ensure adequate fuel oil 
inventory is available to operate EFP-3 for seven days. The proposed 
changes replace the calculated fuel oil inventory values with a more 
conservative value. The proposed SR ensures the same functional 
requirement for a seven day supply of fuel oil for EFP-3 as was 
previously approved. Similarly, the proposed ITS Condition ensures 
the same functional level as currently approved by requiring that a 
reduced fuel oil inventory of less than seven days, but more than 
six days, is restored to the seven day level within 48 hours. Based 
on the above, the proposed LAR meets the same intent as the 
currently approved specifications.
    The proposed CR-3 ITS and SR, revising the values for DFT-4 fuel 
storage, will ensure that the EFW System will be able to perform all 
design functions assumed in the accident analyses. Administrative 
limits are in place to ensure these parameters remain within 
analyzed limits.
    As such, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel 
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

[[Page 34768]]

Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: May 3, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to define a new time limit for 
restoring inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection 
instrumentation to operable status; and establish alternate methods of 
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are 
inoperable. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved Revision 3 
to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 
Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-513, ``Revise PWR 
[pressurized water reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for 
RCS Leakage Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS improvement 
was announced in the Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189), 
as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided an 
analysis of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), which is 
reproduced 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 clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of RCS leakage 
is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The 
monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type 
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing 
normal plant operation. The proposed change maintains sufficient 
continuity and diversity of leak detection capability that the 
probability of piping evaluated and approved for [leak-before-break] 
progressing to pipe rupture remains extremely low.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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.
    The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time 
the plant is allowed to operate with only the containment atmosphere 
gaseous radiation monitor operable increases the margin of safety by 
increasing the likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be 
detected before it potentially results in gross failure.

    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 NSHC.
    Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia and Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specification (TS) section 3.4.15 RCS [Reactor 
Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation, in accordance with 
the Technical Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-513-A, Revision 3, 
titled ``Revise PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Operability 
Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage [detection] Instrumentation.'' 
Specifically, the proposed amendment would revise the TS to define a 
new time limit for restoring inoperable RCS leakage detection 
instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate methods of 
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are 
inoperable. The notice of availability for this TS improvement 
initiative was published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 
FR 189), as part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, 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 clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of RCS leakage 
is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The 
monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type 
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing 
normal plant operation. The proposed change maintains sufficient 
continuity and diversity of leak detection capability that the 
probability of piping evaluated and approved for Leak-Before-Break 
progressing to pipe rupture remains extremely low.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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.
    The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time 
the plant is allowed to operate with only the containment atmosphere 
gaseous radiation

[[Page 34769]]

monitor operable increases the margin of safety by increasing the 
likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be detected before 
it potentially results in gross failure.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the above analysis, SNC concludes that the requested 
change does not involve a significant hazards consideration, as set 
forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), ``Issuance of Amendment.''

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, 
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30308-2216.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.

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 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received 
at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 
or by e-mail to [email protected].

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: June 4, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes an expired 
time-related item and several typographical errors for the Clinton 
Power Station Technical Specifications.
    Date of issuance: May 26, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 193.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (75 
FR 54395).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: January 6, 2010, as 
supplemented on August 20, 2010, October 14, 2010, December 6, 2010, 
and February 7, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment enables PBAPS, Units 
2 and 3, to possess byproduct and special nuclear material from 
Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the 
revised license paragraph would permit storage of low-level radioactive 
waste (LLRW) from LGS in the PBAPS LLRW Storage Facility. The PBAPS 
LLRW Storage Facility currently provides storage for LLRW generated at 
PBAPS.
    Date of issuance: May 31, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-280, Unit 3-282.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (75 
FR 74094). The supplements dated August 20, 2010, October 14, 2010, 
December 6, 2010, and February 7, 2011, clarified the application, did 
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did 
not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendment: December 15, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: This license amendment modifies the 
required testing frequency of Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2 from 
``120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1'' to ``200 days cumulative 
operation in MODE 1,'' by incorporating U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change 
traveler TSTF-460, Revision 0.
    Date of issuance: May 19, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 156.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the 
technical specifications and license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (76 
FR 9825).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of application for amendment: December 15, 2010.

[[Page 34770]]

    Brief description of amendment: This license amendment modifies the 
requirements for testing control rod scram times following fuel 
movement within the reactor pressure vessel by incorporating Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-222-A, Revision 1.
    Date of issuance: May 19, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 157.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (76 
FR 9824).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2010, as supplemented by letters 
dated March 1 and May 2, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 6.8.3.I, ``Containment Post-Tensioning System 
Surveillance Program,'' and the related TS Surveillance Requirement 
4.6.1.6, ``Containment Prestressing System,'' for consistency with the 
requirements of the containment inservice inspection program mandated 
by paragraph 50.55a(g)(4) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), for components classified as Code Class CC. 
Specifically, the amendments deleted the reference to the specific 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
Code (ASME Code) edition in TS 6.8.3.l and replaced it with the 
requirement to use the applicable ASME Code, Section XI edition and 
addenda for successive 10-year inservice inspection intervals in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a, ``Codes and standards.'' The changes 
have no impact on the implementation of the Containment Post-Tensioning 
System Surveillance Program or the design basis of STP, Units 1 and 2.
    Date of issuance: May 27, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-196; Unit 2-184.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (75 
FR 57529). The supplemental letter dated March 1, 2011, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, but did change the 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register on September 21, 
2010 (75 FR 57529). The revised proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination was published in the Federal Register on 
March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16012).
    The supplemental letter dated May 2, 2011, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as noticed on March 22, 2011, and did not change the 
staff's revised proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2011 
(76 FR 16012).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-281, Surry 
Power Station, Unit 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of application for amendments: December 16, 2010.
    Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revised the 
inspection scope and repair requirements of Technical Specification 
(TS) Section 6.4.Q, ``Steam Generator Program,'' and to the reporting 
requirements of TS Section 6.6.A.3, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection 
Report.'' The proposed changes would be applicable to Surry Unit 2 
during Refueling Outage 23 and the subsequent operating cycle.
    Date of issuance: May 20, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 273.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-37: Amendment changes 
the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR 
21923).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: May 6, 2010.
    Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revised the 
licenses and the Technical Specifications (TSs) to provide new limits 
that are valid to 48 effective full-power years for Surry 1 and 2.
    Date of issuance: May 31, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-274 and Unit 2-274.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments change the licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (75 
FR 54396).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of June 2011.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-14680 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P