[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61391-61401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25492]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0230]


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

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from September 7, 2011, to September 21, 2011. 
The last biweekly notice was published on September 20, 2011 (76 FR 
58303).

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0230 in the subject line 
of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments 
and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see 
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. 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-
2011-0230. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submitting Comments and Accessing Information

    Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted 
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://

[[Page 61392]]

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 can access publicly available documents related to this 
document 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, Room 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-2011-0230.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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

[[Page 61393]]

significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that 
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held 
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by e-mail at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) A digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance 
in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/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 the 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 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
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

[[Page 61394]]

officer that the petition or request should be granted or the 
contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors 
specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

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

    Date of Amendment Request: June 22, 2011.
    Description of Amendment Request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.4, ``Atmospheric Dump Valves (ADVs).'' 
Specifically, the amendment would revise the Limiting Condition for 
Operation for TS 3.7.4, with corresponding revisions to the TS 
Conditions, Required Actions, and Completion Times associated with one 
or more inoperable ADV lines. The proposed change would require four 
ADV lines to be operable in MODES 1, 2, and 3, as well as in MODE 4 
when a steam generator (SG) is relied upon for heat removal.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment will revise TS 3.7.4, to require four ADV 
lines be OPERABLE in MODES 1, 2, and 3, as well as in MODE 4, when a SG 
is relied upon for heat removal. The proposed change to TS 3.7.4 is 
consistent with the PVNGS UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] 
Chapters 6 and 15 safety analyses. The proposed change does not involve 
any design or physical changes to the facility, including the ADV lines 
and their associated ADVs, block valves, pneumatic controllers, 
instrument power circuits, or control circuits. The design and 
functional performance requirements, operational characteristics, and 
reliability of the ADV lines remain unchanged. Therefore, there is no 
impact on the design safety function of the ADVs to open (which 
mitigates certain postulated accidents by providing Reactor Coolant 
System heat removal) nor on the design safety function of the ADVs to 
close (which mitigates certain postulated accidents by providing 
containment isolation). Furthermore, there is no change with respect to 
an inadvertent opening of an ADV (as a potential transient initiator).
    With regard to the consequences of postulated design basis 
accidents and the equipment required for mitigation of those accidents, 
the proposed TS changes involve no design or physical changes to the 
ADV lines or any other equipment required for accident mitigation. The 
proposed ADV TS change does not affect any design basis analysis or the 
results of those analyses. The change provides additional assurance 
that ADVs will be available as required.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
analyzed.
    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 will revise TS 3.7.4, to require four ADV 
lines be OPERABLE in MODES 1, 2, and 3, as well as in MODE 4, when a SG 
is relied upon for heat removal. The proposed change to TS 3.7.4 is 
consistent with the PVNGS UFSAR Chapters 6 and 15 safety analyses. The 
proposed change does not involve any design or physical changes to the 
facility, including the ADV lines and their associated ADVs, block 
valves, pneumatic controllers, instrument power circuits, or control 
circuits. No physical alteration of the plant is involved. The proposed 
change does not involve or introduce any changes to plant procedures 
that could cause a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change ensures that the ADVs perform 
their intended functions during all design basis accidents for which 
they are credited. The proposed change does not involve the creation of 
any new or different kind of accident initiator. The proposed change 
does not create any new failure modes for the ADVs and does not affect 
the interaction between the ADVs and any other system.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment will revise TS 3.7.4, to require four ADV 
lines be OPERABLE in MODES 1, 2, and 3, as well as in MODE 4, when a SG 
is relied upon for heat removal. The proposed change to TS 3.7.4 is 
consistent with the PVNGS UFSAR Chapters 6 and 15 safety analyses. The 
proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits or 
limiting safety system settings are determined. No changes to 
instrument and/or system actuation setpoints are involved. Safety and 
Branch Technical Position (BTP) RSB 5-1 analysis acceptance criteria 
are not impacted by this change and the proposed change will not permit 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the 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.

Detroit Edison, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan

    Date of Amendment Request: August 12, 2011.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
revise TS 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air,'' by relocating 
the current stored diesel fuel oil numerical volume requirements from 
the Technical Specifications (TS) to the TS Bases so that it may be 
modified under licensee control. The TS is modified so that the stored 
diesel fuel oil inventory will require that a 7 day supply be available 
for each diesel generator. Condition A in the Action table and 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.3.1 are revised to reflect the above 
change.
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination:

[[Page 61395]]

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 relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil 
required to support 7 day operation of the onsite diesel generators, 
and the volume equivalent to a 6 day supply, to licensee control. The 
specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6 day supply is 
calculated using the NRC-approved methodology described in Regulatory 
Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby Diesel 
Generators'' and ANSI-N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil Systems for Standby Diesel-
Generators'' based on the diesel generator manufacturer's consumption 
values including consideration of minimum required energy content. 
Because the requirement to maintain a 7 day supply of diesel fuel oil 
is not changed and is consistent with the assumptions in the accident 
analyses, and the actions taken when the volume of fuel oil are less 
than a 6 day supply have not changed, neither the probability nor the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
    The proposed change also relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil 
required to support one hour of diesel generator operation at full load 
in the day tank. The specific volume and time is not changed and is 
consistent with the existing plant design basis to support the 
emergency diesel generator under accident loading conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The change does 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. The change does 
not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures that the 
diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident analysis. The 
proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No
    The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil 
required to support 7 day operation of the onsite diesel generators, 
and the volume equivalent to a 6 day supply, and one hour day tank 
supply to licensee control. As the bases for the existing limits on 
diesel fuel oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident 
analysis assumptions and no margin of safety is reduced as part of this 
change.
    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: Bruce R. Masters, DTE Energy, General 
Council--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 20, 2011.
    Description of Amendment Request: Entergy Operations, Inc. (the 
licensee), will be replacing the two Waterford 3 steam generators (SGs) 
during the 18th refueling outage which will commence in the fall of 
2012. The existing Waterford 3 Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.9, 
``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' contains an alternate repair 
criterion for SG tube inspections that is no longer applicable to the 
replacement SGs. Additionally, the replacement SGs will contain 
improved Alloy 690 thermally treated (TT) tubing material. Therefore, 
the SG tubing inservice inspection frequencies may be extended beyond 
that currently allowed by the Waterford TSs. The proposed amendment 
would modify TS 3/4.4.4, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,'' TS 
6.5.9, and TS 6.9.1.5, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to 
reflect the above changes.
    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 continues to implement the Waterford 3 Steam 
Generator (SG) Program performance criteria for tube structural 
integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational leakage for the 
replacement SGs. Meeting the performance criteria provides reasonable 
assurance that the replacement SG tubing will remain capable of 
fulfilling its specific safety function of maintaining reactor coolant 
system (RCS) pressure boundary integrity throughout each operating 
cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident.
    Sufficient SG tube structural margin above the 40 [percent (%)] SG 
tube plugging criteria is retained for the replacement SGs to ensure 
that the probability of an accident is unchanged. The replacement SGs 
are designed with substantial margin to burst. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not affect the probability of a[n] SGTR [steam generator 
tube rupture] accident. The extension of the SG tube inspection 
frequency after initial inspection is based on the low likelihood of 
having potential tube flaws and is considered to be an acceptable 
inspection period to preserve pressure boundary integrity. As a result, 
there will be no affect on the previous dose analysis reported in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report [(UFSAR)] and the consequences of 
any accident are unchanged.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Steam generator tube rupture events have already been postulated 
and analyzed in the Waterford 3 [UFSAR]. The improved Alloy 690TT SG 
tubing material in the Waterford 3 replacement SG reduces the 
likelihood of creating new or different types of tubing flaws. The 
proposed changes do not reduce the design requirements of the SG tubes 
that would affect the current accident analysis. The proposed amendment 
does not impact any other plant systems or components. The SG tube 
inspection TS requirements assure that potential tubing flaws will be 
detected prior to affecting tube integrity and the RCS pressure 
boundary.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or

[[Page 61396]]

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 structural integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational 
leakage performance criteria required by the Waterford 3 technical 
specifications provide substantial design margin for assuring SG tube 
integrity against the possibility of a[n] SG tube pressure boundary 
failure. The analyzed 55% structural limit provides sufficient margin 
above the SG tube plugging criteria of 40% for consideration of eddy 
current measurement uncertainty and allowance for inspection cycle flaw 
growth. The proposed change removes an existing alternate repair 
criterion that is not applicable to the replacement SGs and establishes 
appropriate SG tube subsequent inspection periods consistent with the 
new SG tubing design. The replacement SGs will continue to meet their 
required performance criteria. The Waterford 3 SG tube inspection 
program will assure that this margin is maintained through the 
operational life of the plant.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for Licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General 
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of Amendment Request: June 13, 2011.
    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.1.2, ``Reactivity 
Anomalies,'' through a revision to the method for calculating core 
reactivity for the purpose of performing an anomaly check.
    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 TS change does not affect any plant systems, 
structures, or components designed for the prevention or mitigation of 
previously evaluated accidents. The amendment would only change how the 
reactivity anomaly check is performed. Verifying that the core 
reactivity is consistent with predicted values ensures that accident 
and transient safety analyses remain valid. This amendment changes the 
LCO 3.1.2 and Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.2.1 requirements such 
that the check is performed by a direct comparison of keff 
rather than by comparing predicted to actual control rod density. On-
line core monitoring systems, such as the one currently in use at 
Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS), are capable of performing the 
direct measurement of reactivity.
    Therefore, since the reactivity anomaly check will continue to be 
performed by a viable method, the proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequence of any 
previously evaluated accident.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This TS amendment request does not involve any changes to the 
operation, testing, or maintenance of any safety-related or otherwise 
important to safety, system. All systems that are important to safety 
will continue to be operated and maintained within their design bases. 
The proposed changes to LCO 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 will only provide a 
new, efficient method of detecting an unexpected change in core 
reactivity.
    Since all systems continue to be operated within their design 
bases, no new failure modes are introduced, nor is the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident created.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This proposed TS amendment proposes to change the method for 
performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance from a comparison of 
predicted to actual control rod density to a comparison of predicted to 
actual keff. The direct comparison of keff 
provides a more direct method of calculating any differences in the 
expected core reactivity. The reactivity anomaly check will continue to 
be performed at the same frequency as is currently required by the TS, 
only the method of performing the check will be changed. Consequently, 
core reactivity assumptions made in safety analyses will continue to be 
adequately verified.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not therefore 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. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 1, 2011, as supplemented on 
September 2, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: Currently CNP Units 1 and 2 have 
a fire protection program that is based on compliance with 10 CFR 
50.48(a), 10 CFR 50.48(b), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, NRC guidance 
document Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1 Appendix A, and a 
license condition for each unit. The proposed amendment would 
transition the CNP fire protection program to a new risk-informed, 
performance-based alternative per 10 CFR 50.48(c) which incorporates by 
reference the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805 
(NFPA 805), ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light 
Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants--2001.'' In the rulemaking 
that led to promulgation of 10 CFR 50.48(c), the NRC stated that NFPA 
805 provides an acceptable alternative to 10 CFR 50.48(b), and 
satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A 
to 10 CFR Part 50. Upon approval of the transition to NFPA 805, the CNP 
licensing basis per 10 CFR 50.48(b) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R will 
be superseded. To achieve the transition to the new requirements 
outlined in NFPA 805, the licensee is implementing the methodology 
identified in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) document 04-02, ``Guidance 
for Implementing a Risk-informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection 
Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c).''

[[Page 61397]]

    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. The NRC staff performed its own analysis, 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.
    Upon approval by the NRC staff, the risk-informed and performance-
based NFPA 805 fire protection program will provide the same level of 
safety as the current licensing basis. None of the accidents evaluated 
in the CNP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) were postulated 
to be initiated by fire protection equipment or elements of the fire 
protection program. Thus, the proposed transition of the fire 
protection licensing basis to NFPA 805 will not involve any change, 
increase or decrease, in the probability of previously evaluated 
accidents.
    Elements or equipment of the CNP fire protection program have no 
impact in the evaluation of the consequences of accidents in the UFSAR; 
thus, the consequences of the previously evaluated accidents will 
remain the same regardless of whether the current fire protection 
licensing basis or NFPA 805 is in place.
    Therefore, the proposed licensing basis change will not lead to any 
change, increase or decrease, of the consequences of previously 
evaluated accidents.
    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 of the fire protection licensing basis to NFPA 
805 pertains only to the fire protection program and equipment (e.g., 
modifying fire wrap, modifying control circuitry of certain fire 
protection systems, changing the carbon dioxide system from manual 
actuation to automatic). The proposed change does not affect 
structures, systems, or components that were involved with previously 
evaluated accidents.
    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 change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The proposed change does not involve any 
safety analysis acceptance criteria in the current CNP licensing basis, 
and does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the 
reliability of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR.
    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 
the NRC staff's own analysis, 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 Licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, 
Texas

    Date of Amendment Request: August 1, 2011, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 17, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendments: The proposed change requests the 
adoption of an approved change to the Standard Technical Specifications 
(STS) for Westinghouse Plants (NUREG-1431), to allow relocation of 
specific technical specification (TS) surveillance frequencies to a 
licensee-controlled program. The proposed change is described in and 
consistent with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 425-A, Revision 3, 
``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed 
Technical Specifications Task Force (RI-TSTF) Initiative 5b'' 
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 
No. ML090850642). The Notice of Availability of TSTF-425, Revision 3 
was published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). 
The proposed change would relocate surveillance frequencies to a 
licensee-controlled program termed as the Surveillance Frequency 
Control Program (SFCP). This change is applicable to licensees using 
probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 04-10, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Technical 
Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of 
Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456).
    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 (consistent with the no significant hazards consideration 
published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996) for 
TSTF-425, Revision 3), 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.
    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?

[[Page 61398]]

    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, Luminant Power [Luminant Generation Company 
LLC] will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance 
contained in NRC approved 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 [``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decision-making: 
Technical Specifications,'' August 1998 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML003740176)].
    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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and 
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Docket No. 50-29, Yankee Nuclear Power 
Station, Franklin County, Massachusetts.

    Date of Amendment Request: August 10, 2011.
    Description of Amendment Request: The amendment proposes to revise 
License Condition C(3) ``Physical Protection''. It is proposed to 
update the title of the Physical Security Plan, from the ``Yankee 
Nuclear Power Station Defueled Security Plan'' Revision 0, dated 
October 13, 1992, and ``Yankee Defueled Security Training and 
Qualification Plan'' Revision 0, dated October 13, 1992, to the 
``Physical Security Plan for Yankee Rowe Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation.''
    Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is a title change only. There is no 
reduction in commitments in the Physical Security Plan therefore; the 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is a title change only. There is no 
reduction in commitments in the Physical Security Plan therefore; the 
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The 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 Fay, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, 
362 Injun Hollow Road, East Hampton, Connecticut, 06424-3099.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael D. Waters.

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 NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to 
[email protected].

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, 
Maryland, Date of Application for Amendments: May 11, 2011

    Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revise a note to 
Technical Specification (TS) 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 Improved Standard TSs.
    Date of Issuance: September 8, 2011.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
45 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 300 and 277.

[[Page 61399]]

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: June 14, 2011 (76 FR 
34766).
    The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

    Date of Application for Amendment: July 12, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated August 5, 2010, September 23, 2010, November 10, 2010, 
December 13, 2010, April 4, 2011, and May 17, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment approves the Cyber 
Security Plan (CSP) and associated implementation schedule, and revises 
the license condition regarding physical protection to reflect such 
approval. The amendment specifies that the licensee fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved CSP as 
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
    Date of Issuance: August 31, 2011.
    Effective Date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the CSP, including the key 
intermediate milestone dates and the full implementation date, shall be 
in accordance with the implementation schedule submitted by the 
licensee on April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff with this 
license amendment. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP 
implementation schedule will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 
CFR 50.90.
    Amendment Nos.: 210.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: The amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: November 9, 2010 (75 FR 
68834). The supplemental letters contain clarifying information, did 
not change the scope of the license amendment request, did not change 
the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the 
original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of Application for Amendments: May 28, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated November 15, 2010, March 23, 2011, and May 2, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications to allow manual operation of the containment 
spray system and to change the setpoints for the refueling water 
storage tank.
    Date of Issuance: September 12, 2011.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the first entry into Mode 4 after the refueling outage where 
all of the modifications associated with the amendment have been 
completed.
    Amendment Nos.: 265/245.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Licenses and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (75 FR 
61524). The supplements dated November 15, 2010, March 23, 2011, and 
May 2, 2011, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: October 6, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the note in 
Surveillance Requirement 3.5.4.1 for the Refueling Water Storage Tank 
(RWST) Technical Specification (TS). Specifically, the amendment will 
require monitoring of the RWST temperature every 24 hours when the RWST 
heating steam supply isolation valves are not locked closed.
    Date of Issuance: September 19, 2011.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 244.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: The amendment revised the 
License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: December 28, 2010 (75 
FR 81669).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation Dated September 19, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of Application for Amendment: April 6, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment modified the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit for restoring 
inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection 
instrumentation to operable status; establish alternate methods of 
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are 
inoperable; and make TS Bases changes which reflect the proposed 
changes and more accurately reflect the contents of the facility design 
basis related to operability of the RCS leakage detection 
instrumentation. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved 
Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler 
TSTF-514, ``Revise BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Operability Requirements 
and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation,'' as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process.
    Date of Issuance: September 12, 2011.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 187.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: May 3, 2011 (76 FR 
24928).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of Application for Amendment: September 24, 2010, supplemented 
by letters dated March 18, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 27, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment revises Technical

[[Page 61400]]

Specification 3.4.1.2.3, to allow up to two Main Steam Safety Valves 
(MSSVs) per steam generator to be inoperable with no required reduction 
in power level. It also revises the required maximum overpower trip 
setpoints for any additional inoperable MSSVs consistent with the plant 
transient analysis. The change requires that with less than four MSSVs 
associated with either steam generator operable, the plant would be 
required to be brought to the hot shutdown condition.
    Date of Issuance: September 14, 2011.
    Effective Date: Immediately, and shall be implemented within 60 
days.
    Amendment No.: 277.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised 
the license and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial Notice in Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (75 
FR 74096).
    The supplements dated March 18, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 27, 
2011, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of Application for Amendment: October 15, 2010.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment modifies the Duane 
Arnold Energy Center Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 to 
remove the parent company guarantee Licensing Condition and apply other 
administrative changes to the formatting of the affected renewed 
license pages.
    Date of Issuance: September 8, 2011.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 279.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment did 
not revise the Technical Specifications.
    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 September 8, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of Application for Amendments: April 8, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revised and added a 
new Condition C to Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.6, ``RCS [Reactor 
Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation'' and revise the 
associated TS Bases. New Condition C is applicable when the primary 
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor is the only operable 
TS-required instrument monitoring RCS leakage, i.e., TS-required 
particulate and sump monitors are inoperable. New Condition C Required 
Actions require monitoring RCS leakage by obtaining and analyzing grab 
samples of the primary containment atmosphere every 12 hours, 
monitoring RCS leakage using administrative means every 12 hours, and 
taking action to restore monitoring capability using another monitor 
within 7 days. Additionally, minor editorial revisions are proposed to 
ensure continuity of the TS format. These changes are the result of new 
Condition C and consist of re-lettering existing Conditions C and D as 
Conditions D and E, respectively.
    Date of Issuance: September 8, 2011.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 256 for Unit 1 and 236 for Unit 2.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments 
revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial Notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR 
31376).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2011.
    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: September 22, 2010, as 
supplemented by letter dated April 28, 2011.
    Brief description of Amendments: The amendment allows Hope Creek 
Generating Station to operate at a reduced feedwater temperature for 
purposes of extending the normal fuel cycle. The amendment also allows 
operation with feedwater heaters out-of-service at any time during the 
operating cycle. In addition, the amendment revises surveillance 
requirements related to testing of the Oscillation Power Range Monitor.
    Date of Issuance: September 14, 2011.
    Effective Date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 190.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and the Facility Operating License.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: January 10, 2011 (76 FR 
1466). The letter dated April 28, 2011, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of application for amendment: July 12, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated August 5, 2010, September 23, 2010, November 10, 2010, 
December 13, 2010, April 4, 2011, and May 17, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendments approve the cyber 
security plan (CSP) and associated implementation schedule, and revise 
the license condition regarding physical protection to reflect such 
approval. The amendments specify that the licensee fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved CSP as 
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
    Date of Issuance: August 31, 2011.
    Effective Date: These license amendments are effective as of the 
date of issuance. The implementation of the CSP, including the key 
intermediate milestone dates and the full implementation date, shall be 
in accordance with the implementation schedule submitted by the 
licensee on April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff with this 
license amendment. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP 
implementation schedule will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 
CFR 50.90.
    Amendment Nos.: 264 (for Unit 1) and 245 (for Unit 2).
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: The amendments 
revised

[[Page 61401]]

the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR 
76047). The supplemental letters contain clarifying information, did 
not change the scope of the license amendment request, did not change 
the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the 
original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated August 31, 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 County, Virginia

    Date of Application for Amendment: July 12, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated August 5, 2010, September 23, 2010, November 10, 2010, 
December 13, 2010, April 4, 2011, and May 17, 2011.
    Brief Description of Amendment: The amendments approve the cyber 
security plan (CSP) and associated implementation schedule, and revises 
the license condition regarding physical protection to reflect such 
approval. The amendments specify that the licensee fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved CSP as 
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
    Date of Issuance: August 31, 2011.
    Effective Date: These license amendments are effective as of the 
date of issuance. The implementation of the CSP, including the key 
intermediate milestone dates and the full implementation date, shall be 
in accordance with the implementation schedule submitted by the 
licensee on April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff with this 
license amendment. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP 
implementation schedule will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 
CFR 50.90.
    Amendment Nos.: 276 (for Unit 1) and 276 (for Unit 2)
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: The amendments 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR 
76047). The supplemental letters contain clarifying information did not 
change the scope of the license amendment request, did not change the 
NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the 
original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated August 31, 2011.
    No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of September 2011.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-25492 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P