Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 30440-30451 [2010-12888]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30440-30451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12888]


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

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0192]


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

[[Page 30441]]

immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a 
determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from May 6 to May 19, 2010. The last biweekly 
notice was published on May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27825).

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

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

[[Page 30442]]

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
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

[[Page 30443]]

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.

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

    Date of amendment requests: April 5, 2010.
    Description of amendments request: The amendment would make title 
changes and corrections within Technical Specification (TS) 5.0, 
``Administrative Controls.'' Specifically, the proposed changes would 
include:
    (1) Replacement of the use of plant-specific titles to generic 
titles consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-65, Revision 
1, ``Use of Generic Titles for Utility Positions,''
    (2) Changes made to more closely align selected TSs with the 
Improved Standard TSs, and
    (3) Administrative changes to specified TSs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No.
    The first portion of the proposed change, involving adoption of 
a generic title vice a plant specific personnel title, is 
administrative in nature. As such, this change does not involve any 
change to the design basis of the plant or of any structure, system, 
or component. As a result there is no change to the probability or 
consequences of any previously evaluated accident.
    The second portion of the proposed change involves changes to 
Technical Specifications that align them to the words used in the 
Improved Standard Technical Specifications for gaseous effluents to 
include effluents that are already routinely monitored. In addition, 
the proposed change in requiring either the operations manager or 
assistant operations manager to hold a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) 
license meets the established standards of American National 
Standards Institute N18.1-1971 for individuals filling the 
applicable positions. These changes do not involve any change to the 
design basis of the plant or of any structure, system, or component. 
As a result there is no change to the probability or consequences of 
any previously evaluated accident.
    The third portion of the proposed change involves administrative 
changes that do not involve any change to the design basis of the 
plant or of any structure, system, or component. As a result there 
is no change to the probability or consequences of any previously 
evaluated accident.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed changes will not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    No.
    The first portion of the proposed change, involving adoption of 
a generic title vice a plant specific personnel title is 
administrative in nature. As such, this change does not result in 
any physical alterations to the plant configuration, make any change 
to plant operation, or alter any design function. As a result no new 
accident failure mechanisms or single failures are introduced.
    The second portion of the proposed change involves changes to 
Technical Specifications that align those Technical Specifications 
to the words used in the Improved Standard Technical Specifications 
for gaseous effluent monitoring to include certain effluents that 
are already routinely monitored. In addition, the proposed change 
requiring either the operations manager or assistant operations 
manager to hold an SRO license meets the established standards of 
American National Standards Institute N18.1-1971 for individuals 
filling the applicable positions. These changes do not involve any 
change to the design basis of the plant or of any structure, system, 
or component. As a result no new accident failure mechanisms or 
single failures are introduced.
    The third portion of the proposed change involves administrative 
changes that do not involve any change to the design basis of the 
plant or of any structure, system, or component. As a result no new 
accident failure mechanisms or single failures are introduced.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed changes will not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    No.
    The first portion of the proposed change, involving adoption of 
a generic title vice a plant specific personnel title is 
administrative in nature. As such, this change involves no change to 
the design bases functions or to the controlling values of 
parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. 
As a result there is no decrease in any margin of safety due to this 
proposed change.
    The second portion of the proposed change involves changes to 
Technical Specifications that align those Technical Specifications 
to the words used in the Improved Standard Technical Specifications 
for gaseous effluent monitoring to include certain effluents that 
are already routinely monitored. In addition, the proposed change 
requiring either the operations manager or assistant operations 
manager to hold an SRO license meets the established standards of 
American National Standards Institute N18.1-1971 for individuals 
filling the applicable positions. As such, these changes involve no 
change to the design bases functions or to the controlling values of 
parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. 
As a result there is no decrease in any margin of safety due to 
these proposed changes.
    The third portion of the proposed change involves administrative 
changes that do not involve any change to the design basis of the 
plant or of any structure, system, or component. As such, these 
changes involve no change to the design bases functions or to the 
controlling values of parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory 
or licensing limits. As a result there is no decrease in any margin 
of safety due to these proposed changes.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed changes will 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 
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear 
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 
17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: March 5, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant's Technical Specifications (TS) 
Section 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) 
Instrumentation,'' to allow the performance of maintenance activities 
for an inoperable containment pressure-high high channel. The proposed 
change to TS 3.3.6, ``Containment Ventilation Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' corrects an error related to table references.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase 
in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated.

[[Page 30444]]

    The proposed changes to TS 3.3.2 are intended to allow for the 
performance of maintenance activities required to return an 
inoperable channel to service with the instrumentation and plant in 
a condition that reduces the probability of an inadvertent transient 
or the need for a plant shutdown. Therefore, the proposed change 
reduces the probability of an accident because the likelihood of 
accident initiation is decreased.
    The emergency safety features that are actuated by the 
Containment Pressure-High High channels are Main Steam Line 
Isolation, Containment Spray, and Containment Phase B isolation. 
These safety features are intended to reduce the consequences of 
design basis accident scenarios. These safety features are still 
expected to function as designed. Actuation from containment 
pressure exceeding the High High trip setpoint will still occur with 
one trip signal bypassed based on the input from the other five 
channels. Should an additional failure result in the inability to 
actuate based on Containment Pressure-High High, there are other 
means to actuate these safety features in a timely manner. Main 
Steam Line Isolation based on High High containment pressure is only 
important for the assumed main steam line break inside containment. 
For such an accident, main steam line isolation will still 
automatically occur from either High Steam Flow in Two Steam Lines 
Coincident with Tavg-Low, or High Steam Flow in Two Steam 
Lines Coincident with Steam Line Pressure-Low. In regard to 
Containment Spray and Containment Phase B Isolation, the operator 
can manually initiate these functions if automatic actuation did not 
occur and containment conditions warranted actuation. Therefore, 
there will not be a significant increase in the consequences of 
analyzed accidents.
    The proposed change to TS 3.3.6 is an administrative correction 
and there will be no actual changes to plant design or operation.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New 
or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
    As described above, the proposed change to TS 3.3.2 would allow 
a single Containment Pressure-High High channel to not be in the 
trip condition for maintenance purposes for a limited period of time 
(up to six hours). This is a condition that is already allowed 
during the first six hours of the action statement.
    Therefore, no new accident initiators or precursors are 
introduced by the proposed change.
    The proposed change to TS 3.3.6 is an administrative correction 
and there will be no actual changes to plant design or operation.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction 
in the Margin of Safety.
    As described above, the proposed change to TS 3.3.2 would allow 
a single Containment Pressure-High High channel to not be in the 
trip condition for a limited period of time (up to six hours) to 
allow an effective means of maintenance to return an inoperable 
channel to service. It is expected that safety systems will continue 
to function as designed with a single channel not in trip and 
therefore there will be no impact on the accident analyses or a 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The proposed change to TS 3.3.6 is an administrative correction 
and there will be no actual changes to plant design or operation.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

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

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, 
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 3, 2009.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.7.10, ``Control Room Area 
Ventilation System (CRAVS),'' to allow movement of irradiated fuel with 
only one CRAVS train OPERABLE.
    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?
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of structure, systems and components (SSCS) to 
perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an 
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. This is a 
revision to the TS for the control room ventilation system which is 
a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air inleakage 
into the control room and to filter the Control Room atmosphere to 
protect occupants following an accident previously analyzed. The 
Control Room ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to 
any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability or 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    This revision will not impact the accident analysis. The change 
will not alter the requirements of the Control Room ventilation 
system or its function during accident conditions. No new or 
different accidents result from the changes proposed. The changes do 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or significant 
changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The changes do 
not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed 
changes are consistent with the safety analyses assumptions. 
Therefore, it is concluded that these 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 
margin of safety?
    The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operations are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not 
result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design 
basis for an acceptable period of time without compensatory 
measures. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that 
respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a 
safe shutdown condition. It is therefore concluded that the proposed 
changes do not involve a significant reduction in the 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: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General 
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South 
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises the

[[Page 30445]]

Technical Specifications (TSs) to delete channel check surveillance 
requirements in TS 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' for the traversing in-core probe (TIP) isolation 
instrumentation.
    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 3.3.6.1 by eliminating a channel 
check SR [surveillance requirement]. The controls and requirements 
of TS[s] otherwise continue to be enforced. The proposed change does 
not affect any plant equipment, test methods, or plant operation, 
and does not affect the initiation of any analyzed accident 
sequence. The allowance to un-isolate a penetration flow path is 
preserved and will not have a significant effect on the mitigation 
of any accident previously evaluated because the penetration flow 
path can be isolated, if needed, by a dedicated operator. The option 
to isolate a TIP penetration continues to be preserved and ensures 
the penetration will perform as assumed in the accident analysis. 
Operation in accordance with the proposed TS will ensure that all 
analyzed accidents will continue to be mitigated as previously 
analyzed.
    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 does not involve a physical alteration to 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the 
safety analysis.
    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 a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not affect the operation of plant 
equipment or the function of any equipment assumed in the accident 
analysis. The allowance to un-isolate a penetration flow path will 
not have a significant effect on a margin of safety because the 
penetration flow path can be isolated manually, if needed. The 
option to isolate a TIP penetration is preserved, and will continue 
to ensure the penetration will perform as assumed in the accident 
analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to add a channel check surveillance 
requirement to TS 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' for the reactor pressure vessel low water level 
isolation signal to the primary containment isolation valves.
    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.
    Adding a channel check surveillance for the main steam low water 
level isolation function does not increase the probability or 
consequences of a previously evaluated accident. The proposed change 
does not impact the logic or performance of the isolation function. 
The proposed change increases assurance that the isolation function 
will be operable by providing increased monitoring.
    Therefore the proposed change does not increase probability or 
consequences for an evaluated accident.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No modifications are being made under the proposed change that 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 
Overall system reliability is improved due to more frequent 
monitoring.
    Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of 
new or different accidents.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The addition of a channel check surveillance provides increased 
assurance of operability of the MSIV [main steam isolation valve] 
low water level isolation function.
    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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 2, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Exelon Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for Clinton 
Power Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, Table B-1, ``Minimum Staffing 
Requirements for the On-Shift Clinton Station [Emergency Response 
Organization] ERO,'' to increase the Non-Licensed Operator (NLO) 
staffing from two to four, allow in-plant protective actions to be 
performed by personnel assigned to other functions, and replace a 
Mechanical Maintenance person with a NLO.
    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 changes to the CPS Emergency Plan Table B-1, 
``Minimum Staffing Requirements for the On-Shift Clinton Station 
ERO,'' were evaluated against plant operations during design basis 
accidents, Radiation Protection (RP) personnel tasks associated with 
design basis accidents, and the CPS radiological accident 
assessment. The reallocation of functions between ERO responders and 
the addition of two NLOs does not reduce the minimum number of on-
shift staffing, nor does it reduce or impede the tasks that are 
required to be performed during an emergency event. This change does 
not reduce the functionality of tasks required to be

[[Page 30446]]

performed; therefore, since all personnel will be trained and 
qualified to perform all assigned tasks, this change does not reduce 
the effectiveness of the ERO's performance or the CPS Emergency Plan 
in mitigating the consequences of any accident.
    The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation 
of the CPS Emergency Plan has no relevance in determining whether 
the proposed change reduces the effectiveness of the CPS Emergency 
Plan. The Planning Basis section of NUREG-0654, Revision 1, 
``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency 
Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' describes how to address the likelihood of an event during 
the development of an emergency response plan. According to NUREG-
0654, Revision 1:

    The overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide 
dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a 
spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of 
Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident 
sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because 
each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and 
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning 
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no 
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident 
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst 
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood.
    Therefore, while the proposed changes will not impact the 
probability or consequences of any previously evaluated accident, 
[Exelon Generation Company, LLC] EGC did not consider the risk 
insights regarding any specific accident initiation or progression 
in evaluating the proposed change.
    Process improvements made by CPS associated with the activation 
of the ERO will ensure emergency responders will be available on-
site in the allotted timeframe. Additionally, CPS successfully 
demonstrated the capability to fully staff and activate the ERO 
facilities in a September 16, 2004, off-hours augmentation drive-in 
drill. This drill confirmed that the CPS ERO is capable of being 
staffed, with the proposed staffing, in the allotted amount of time.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration, or the manner in which the plant is operated and 
maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability 
of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their 
intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an 
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 
Further, since the changes are simply a reallocation of 
responsibilities from one group of trained and qualified individuals 
to another, the proposed changes do not increase the types and 
amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released off site, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational or 
public radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the probability of an accident is not impacted, nor 
is there a significant impact on the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, introduced by the proposed changes.
    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 changes do not involve the addition or modification 
of any plant equipment. Moreover, the proposed changes will not 
alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant 
equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. CPS ERO 
functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed 
modification of ERO assignments does not create any new credible 
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter or exceed a design basis 
parameter or safety limit for any system or component. No change to 
the setpoint or environmental condition of any SSC or the manner in 
which any SSC is operated is proposed. The proposed changes do not 
affect any of the assumptions used in any accident analysis, nor do 
they affect any operability requirement for equipment important to 
plant safety. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.47, ``Emergency plans,'' 
paragraph (b) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, ``Emergency Planning and 
Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,'' will 
continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any 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 Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 
Unit No. 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow a one-time 
replacement of the 2C 125-volt direct current (VDC) battery while Salem 
Unit 2 is at power.
    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.
    During the replacement of the existing 2C 125VDC battery, a 
temporary, TS operable battery will provide the same function as the 
battery being removed. The temporary battery has been analyzed to 
comply with the required design functions of the existing 2C 125VDC 
battery. The temporary battery will be subjected to all required TS 
surveillance testing prior to being utilized to confirm operability. 
The temporary battery will be placed in service during the current 
TS AOT [allowed outage time]. The respective DC bus will be 
continuously energized by the existing battery charger. 
Consequently, the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of the 
plant will continue to perform their design function. The proposed 
change will have no adverse affect on plant operations, or any 
design function or analysis.
    The proposed change does not affect accident initiators or 
precursors, or design assumptions for the systems or components used 
to mitigate the consequences of an accident as analyzed in the UFSAR 
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. The temporary battery will 
be operable while the permanent 2C 125VDC battery is replaced and 
the other divisions of DC power will also remain operable to support 
design mitigation capability.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent 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.
    During the replacement of the existing 2C 125VDC battery, a 
temporary battery will provide the same function as the 2C 125VDC 
battery that is being replaced. This temporary battery possesses 
adequate capacity to fulfill the safety-related requirements of 
supplying necessary power to the associated 125VDC bus. Because the 
temporary battery will perform like the station battery that is 
currently installed, no new electrical or functional failure modes 
are created. Equipment will be operated in the same manner that is 
currently allowed and designed for. Consequently, there is no change 
to the design function or operation of the SSCs involved and no 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident due to credible 
new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not 
previously considered in the design and licensing bases.
    The proposed one-time change does not introduce any new accident 
initiators or

[[Page 30447]]

precursors or any new design assumptions for those systems or 
components used to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
    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.
    During the replacement of the 2C 125VDC battery, a TS operable 
125VDC battery will temporarily perform the same function. The 
temporary replacement 125VDC battery will be assembled from the same 
type and manufactured safety-related Class 1E cells. The temporary 
replacement 125VDC battery will meet all the design requirements as 
the 2C 125VDC battery that it replaces. It will possess adequate 
capacity to fulfill the requirements of the associated 125VDC bus. 
The proposed replacement activity will not prevent the plant from 
mitigating a Design Basis Accident (DBA) during the time the 
temporary battery is in service. Required DC power systems 
supporting the design mitigation capability will be maintained. The 
associated DC bus will always be supplied by either the temporary 
battery and/or the battery charger at all times. The proposed change 
does not alter a design basis or safety limit; therefore it does not 
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The 2C 125VDC bus will 
continue to operate per the existing design and regulatory 
requirements.
    Therefore, this 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: Vincent Zabielski, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: February 24, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.11 ``Control Room Emergency Air 
Temperature Control System (CREATCS).'' The proposed change would only 
be applicable during plant modifications to upgrade the CREATCS 
chillers. This ``one-time'' TS change would be implemented during Watts 
Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Cycles 10 and 11 beginning December 1, 2010, 
and ending January 29, 2012.
    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 Control Room Emergency Air Treatment System (CREATCS) is 
used to maintain an acceptable environment for control room 
personnel and equipment during normal and emergency conditions. The 
proposed ``one-time'' Technical Specification (TS) to extend the 
Completion Time for loss of one train from 30 days to 60 days is 
justified because the additional risk of operating the plant beyond 
the current Completion Time of 30 days is compensated by the 
addition of a temporary, non-safety related cooling system with a 
diesel generator backup.
    The CREATCS system does not have the potential to create a 
design basis accident as it only provides MCRHZ [main control room 
habitability zone] cooling and do not directly mitigate postulated 
accidents. Temporary cooling equipment will be designed in 
accordance with appropriate design controls, sized to ensure 
adequate cooling capacity, and located such that safety-related 
features would not be prevented from performing their safety 
function. Since the MCR chillers do not contribute to the initiators 
of postulated accidents, the probability of an accident is not 
significantly increased by the proposed change.
    The MCR HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning] 
Systems do ensure a suitable environment for safety-related 
equipment and personnel during an accident. The temperature limits 
placed on the temporary cooling system ensure that the control room 
areas will remain at acceptable levels to support plant evolutions 
in response to postulated accidents. Safety functions that are 
necessary to maintain acceptable offsite dose limits will not be 
degraded by the proposed change. Alternate cooling methods that will 
maintain the control room areas well within the equipment 
temperature limits will ensure these safety functions. With the 
control room cooling requirements satisfied, the offsite dose limits 
are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed ``one-time'' Completion Time extension will 
continue to ensure that the control room ambient temperatures will 
not exceed 90[deg]F. The temperature control functions for the 
control room are not postulated to create an accident and since the 
proposed change continues to maintain acceptable temperatures, no 
new accident initiators are created.
    Implementation of temporary cooling methods will be designed 
such that safety-related features will not be prevented from 
performing their safety functions and will be in compliance with 10 
CFR 50.59 requirements. Plant operation during the use of such 
alternate cooling methods will continue to comply with applicable 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements. 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 ``one-time'' Completion Time extension will 
continue to maintain control room temperatures at acceptable levels 
to ensure the availability of equipment necessary for safety 
functions. Sufficient margin to temperature limits will be 
maintained to ensure response to accident conditions can be managed 
adequately and temperatures will remain at acceptable levels to 
complete necessary accident mitigation actions. Plant components and 
their setpoints will not be altered by the proposed change that 
would impact the ability to respond to accident conditions. The 
installation of temporary cooling devices will be designed such that 
safety-related features would not be prevented from performing their 
safety function. 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 
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.

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

[[Page 30448]]

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.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: December 16, 2009, as 
supplemented by letters dated March 11, 2010, and April 22, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' to allow 
inspection of the steam generator tubes to start within the tubesheet 
region (a minimum of 17.28 inches below the top of the tubesheet). The 
amendment also adds requirements in TS 5.6.8, ``Steam Generator Tube 
Inspection Report,'' to report indications in this region and primary 
to secondary leakage that could be attributed to the uninspected 
portion of the tube within the tubesheet. These changes are only 
applicable until the end of Operating Cycle 27.
    The supplements dated March 11, 2010, and April 22, 2010, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2010 
(75 FR 6731).
    Date of issuance: May 7, 2010.
    Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be 
implemented by the end of Refueling Outage 26.
    Amendment No.: 224.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment 
revises the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 10, 2010 (75 
FR 6731).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2010.
    Public comments received as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: May 29, 2009.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) as follows: (1) Revised the definition 
for Operable-Operability; (2) modified the provisions under which 
equipment may be considered operable when either its normal or 
emergency power source is inoperable; (3) deleted TS limiting condition 
for operation (LCO) 2.0.1(2); (4) deleted diesel generator Surveillance 
Requirement 3.7.1(e); and (5) relocated the guidance for inoperable 
power supplies and verifying the operability of redundant components 
into the LCO for electrical equipment 2.7, ``Electrical Systems.''
    Date of issuance: May 14, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 264.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (74 FR 
51331).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated May 14, 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 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

[[Page 30449]]

opportunity for public comment. If comments have been reque