Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 8139-8147 [2010-3357]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8139-8147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3357]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0055]


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

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from January 28, 2010, to February 10, 2010. The 
last biweekly notice was published on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6408).

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

[[Page 8140]]

following amendment requests involve no significant hazards 
consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Sec.  50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment 
would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each 
amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking 
and Directives Branch (RDB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be faxed to the RDB at 301-492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or 
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for 
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) 
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://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.

[[Page 8141]]

    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 
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request 
(1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at https://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 
https://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 https://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 https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants 
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as 
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their 
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of 
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited 
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, https://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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Docket Nos. 
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 16, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specifications (TS) Section 5.6.5, ``Core Operating 
Limits Report (COLR),'' to replace the existing

[[Page 8142]]

reference for the large break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analysis 
methodology with a reference to WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic Large Break 
LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using Automated Statistical Treatment of 
Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM).''
    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 revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a 
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the 
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used 
for establishing core operating limits. Accident analyses are not 
accident initiators; therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant increase in the probability of an accident. The 
analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated that the acceptance criteria in 
10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling 
systems for light water nuclear power reactors,'' were met. Large 
break LOCA analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC 
approved WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, 
limitations and conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance 
criteria are met; thus, this change does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident. No physical changes to 
the plant are associated with the proposed change.
    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 proposed change revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a 
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the 
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used 
for establishing core operating limits. There are no physical 
changes being made to the plant as a result of using the 
Westinghouse ASTRUM analysis methodology in WCAP-16009-P-A for 
performance of the large break LOCA analyses. Large break LOCA 
analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved 
WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and 
conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are 
met. No new modes of plant operation are being introduced. The 
configuration, operation, and accident response of the structures or 
components are unchanged by use of the new analysis methodology. 
Analyses of transient events have confirmed that no transient event 
results in a new sequence of events that could lead to a new 
accident scenario. The parameters assumed in the analyses are within 
the design limits of existing plant equipment.
    In addition, employing the Westinghouse ASTRUM large break LOCA 
analysis methodology does not create any new failure modes that 
could lead to a different kind of accident. The design of systems 
remains unchanged and no new equipment or systems have been 
installed which could potentially introduce new failure modes or 
accident sequences. No changes have been made to instrumentation 
actuation setpoints. Adding the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in TS 
Section 5.6.5.b is an administrative change that does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    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 revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a 
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the 
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used 
for establishing core operating limits.
    The analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated that the applicable 
acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46 are met. Margins of safety for 
large break LOCAs include quantitative limits for fuel performance 
established in 10 CFR 50.46. These acceptance criteria are not being 
changed by this proposed new methodology. Large break LOCA analyses 
performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved WCAP-
16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and 
conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are 
met; thus, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification 3.1.2, ``Reactivity Anomalies,'' to 
allow a change in the method of calculating core reactivity for the 
purpose of performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance. The 
surveillance is currently determined by a comparison of predicted to 
actual control rod density. The proposed change would allow performance 
of the surveillance by comparison of predicted to measured (or 
monitored) core reactivity. The proposed change would not modify the 
frequency of the surveillance requirement (SR).
    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.
    This proposed Technical Specifications 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 [Limiting Condition for 
Operation] 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 requirements such that, rather than 
performing the check by comparing predicted to actual control rod 
density, the check is performed by a direct comparison of 
keff. Present day on-line core monitoring systems, such 
as the one in use at Plant Hatch, 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 
a previously evaluated accident.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This Technical Specifications amendment request does not involve 
any changes to the operation, testing, or maintenance of any safety-
related, or otherwise important to safety, system. All important to 
safety systems will continue to be operated, surveillances 
performed, and maintained within their design bases. The proposed 
changes to the reactivity anomaly LCO 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 will only 
provide a new, more 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 and the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident is not created.

[[Page 8143]]

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This proposed Technical Specifications amendment proposes to 
change the LCO 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 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 
technically superior 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 Tech Specs [Technical Specifications], only the method of 
performing the check will be changed. Consequently, core reactivity 
assumptions made in safety analyses will continue to be adequately 
verified.
    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: 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, https://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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of application of amendments: January 31, 2008, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 3 and 29, 2008; May 15 and 28, 
2008; September 30, 2008; October 7, 16, 23, and 28, 2008; November 6, 
19, and 25, 2008; December 22, 2008; February 27, 2009; March 6, 2009; 
April 3 (2 separate letters), and April 30, 2009; June 19, 2009; August 
10, 2009; November 5 and 19, 2009; and December 17, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications and approved a change to the licensee's 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report associated with the acceptance of 
the new reactor protective system and engineered safeguard protective 
system digital upgrade.
    Date of Issuance: January 28, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the installation of the reactor protective system and 
engineered safeguard protective system digital upgrade.
    Amendment Nos.: 366, 368, and 367.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 3, 2008 (73 FR 
73663).
    The supplements dated April 3 and 29, 2008; May 15 and 28, 2008; 
September 30, 2008; October 7, 16, 23, and 28, 2008; November 6, 19, 
and 25, 2008; December 22, 2008; February 27, 2009; March 6, 2009; 
April 3 (2 separate letters), and April 30, 2009; June 19, 2009; August 
10, 2009; November 5 and 19, 2009; and December 17, 2009; 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 January 28, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 16, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical 
Specification 5.5.16, ``Reactor Building Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' which currently contains reactor building leak rate criteria 
for overall Type A, B, and C testing, but does not specify criteria for 
Type B air lock leakage testing. The amendment added criteria for 
overall air lock leakage testing and to adopt a low pressure test 
method relevant to the air lock door seals. The change is consistent 
with NUREG-1430, Revision 3.1, ``Standard Technical Specifications 
(STS) for Babcock & Wilcox Plants.''
    Date of issuance: February 1, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 242.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the Technical Specifications/license.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR 
18253).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 1, 2010.
    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: July 30, 2009, as supplemented 
on December 29, 2009.

[[Page 8144]]

    Brief description of amendments: Technical Specification (TS) 
Section 3.6.3.1, ``Containment Atmosphere Dilution (CAD) System,'' is 
deleted to modify containment combustible gas control requirements as 
permitted by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, 
Section 50.44 (10 CFR 50.44). 10 CFR 50.44 was revised on September 16, 
2003, as noticed in the Federal Register (68 FR 54123). The TSs are 
revised consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 
478, Revision 2, ``BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Technical Specification 
Changes that Implement the Revised Rule for Combustible Gas Control.''
    Date of issuance: January 28, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 274 and 278.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 6, 2009, (74 FR 
51331).
    The supplement dated December 29, 2009, 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 January 28, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: February 26, 2009, and 
supplemented by letter dated May 29, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows adopting a new 
methodology, developed for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 
Plant (CR-3) by AREVA NP, to analyze the rod ejection accident under 
extended power uprate conditions. The CR-3 Improved Technical 
Specifications Section 5.6.2.18, ``Core Operating Limits Report 
(COLR),'' would be revised to add ANP-2788P, ``Crystal River 3 Rod 
Ejection Accident Methodology Report,'' to the list of approved methods 
used in developing the COLR. In addition, this amendment would delete 
Operating License Condition 2.C.(12) that identified topical reports 
BAW-10164P-A, Revision 4, and BAW-1 0241 P, Revision 0, that were used 
in developing COLR for Cycle 14. These topical reports were 
subsequently incorporated into BAW-10179P-A, ``Safety Criteria 
Methodology for Acceptable Cycle Reload Analysis.''
    Date of issuance: January 28, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
during Refuel 17 that is scheduled for fall of 2011.
    Amendment No. 237.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the 
facility operating license and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2009 (74 FR 
22179).
    The supplement dated May 29, 2009, provided additional information 
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the 
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendments: April 21, 2009, as supplemented 
on September 8, 2009, October 9, 2009, and January 26, 2010 (TSC 07-
05).
    Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendments revised 
the Technical Specifications (TSs) and upgraded the Emergency Core 
Cooling System (ECCS) requirements to be more consistent with NUREG-
1431, Revision 3, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse 
Plants.'' The upgrade revised Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 TS 
Section 3/4.5.2, ``ECCS Subsystems--Tavg Greater Than or 
Equal to 350 [deg]F,'' TS Section 3/4.5.3, ``ECCS Subsystems--
Tavg Less Than 350 [deg]F,'' and the corresponding 
surveillance requirements (SRs) that would resolve an inconsistency 
between SR 4.5.2.f and plant safety analyses.
    Date of issuance: January 28, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 326 and 319.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR 
28580).
    The supplement letters dated September 8, 2009, October 9, 2009, 
and January 26, 2010, provided additional information that clarified 
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as 
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendments: October 20, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted paragraph g 
of Technical Specification (TS) 6.2.2, ``Facility Staff,'' to eliminate 
working-hour restrictions in the TS, as similar requirements are 
sufficiently imposed by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR), Part 26, Subpart I. This change is consistent with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-
511, Revision 0, ``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to 
Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
    Date of issuance: February 2, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 327 and 320.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments 
revised the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR 
62837).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 2, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and 
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
Circumstances)

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
amendment complies with the

[[Page 8145]]

standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 
(the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission 
has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation 
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://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 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date 
of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be 
affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition 
to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject 
facility operating license. 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 
1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by 
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or 
an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The 
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or 
fact.\1\

[[Page 8146]]

Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the 
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and 
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they 
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, 
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the 
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a 
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within one of the following groups:
    1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the 
applications.
    2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the 
applications.
    3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined 
above.
    As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors 
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall 
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act 
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a 
requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of another 
sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner who seeks to 
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner shall act as the representative with respect to that 
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner a representative who shall have the authority to act for the 
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing 
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any 
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
    All documents filed in 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, which the NRC 
promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the requestor/petitioner 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling (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/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the requestor/petitioner (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM 
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the 
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is 
available at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
    Once a requestor/petitioner has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE 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 
EIE 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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 a motion, 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.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of

[[Page 8147]]

the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a 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.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: January 24, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 3.6.9, ``Distributed Ignition System (DIS),'' to allow 
Train B of the DIS to be considered operable with two inoperable 
ignitors. The current technical specifications permit no more than one 
inoperable ignitor per train for maintaining operability. The proposed 
technical specification revision is applicable until the fall 2010 
refueling outage, or until the unit enters a mode which allows 
replacement of the affected ignitors without exposing personnel to 
significant radiation and safety hazards.
    Date of issuance: February 4, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 5 days.
    Amendment No.: 294.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was 
published in The Herald-Palladium newspaper, located in the City of St. 
Joseph, Berrien County, Michigan, on January 29 and 30, 2010. The 
notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's 
proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a safety evaluation dated February 4, 2010.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. James M. Petro, Senior Legal Counsel, 
American Electric Power, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-3357 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P