Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 52039-52045 [2010-20694]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52039-52045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20694]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0280]


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 July 29, 2010 to August 11, 2010. The last 
biweekly notice was published on August 10, 2010 (75 FR 48370).

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the 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

[[Page 52040]]

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.
    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

[[Page 52041]]

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. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
the Technical Specification (TS) High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) 
Equipment Room Delta Temperature High Trip Setpoint and Allowable Value 
listed in Table 3.3.2-2, Isolation Actuation Instrumentation Setpoints, 
Item 4e, for Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. The Trip 
Setpoint and Allowable Values are proposed to be lowered, which is in 
the conservative direction, to reflect a revised analysis for the HPCI 
equipment room temperature following a postulated 25 gallon per minute 
steam leak. The revised analysis was performed in September 2009. LGS 
Licensee Event Report number 2009-003-00, ``Both Isolation Actuation 
Instrument Channels Inoperable'' (Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML092990404), submitted on 
October 26, 2009, provides more details on the reason for completing 
the revised analysis.
    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 with NRC edits in brackets:

    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 lower the Technical Specification (TS) 
High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) Equipment Room Delta 
Temperature High Isolation Trip Setpoint from <=126 degrees 
[Fahrenheit] F to <=104 degrees F and lower the corresponding 
Allowable Value (AV) from <=130.5 degrees F to <=108.5 degrees F do 
not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A reanalysis of the steam leak model 
for HPCI equipment room has identified that a 25 gallons per minute 
(gpm) steam leak may not have been isolated on HPCI equipment room 
high differential temperature with the existing temperature 
indicating switch setpoints in all plant conditions. Lowering the 
non-conservative TS Trip Setpoint to 104 degrees F will decrease the 
consequence of a 25 gpm HPCI steam line leak outside primary 
containment within the HPCI room by ensuring it is isolated. The 
value of 104 degrees F is set high enough to ensure that a premature 
isolation of the HPCI System following a Loss of Coolant Accident 
does

[[Page 52042]]

not occur. The environmental qualification of required equipment in 
the HPCI rooms is not affected by the proposed lowered isolation 
trip setpoint. The proposed setpoint change [ensures that a 25 gpm 
steam leak is isolated prior to exceeding the integrated mass 
release of the bounding analysis] described in the Limerick Updated 
Final Safety Analysis [R]eport (UFSAR) Section 15.6.4, ``Steam 
System Piping Break Outside Primary Containment.''
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes to lower the TS HPCI Equipment Room Delta 
Temperature High Isolation Trip Setpoint from <=126 degrees F to 
<=104 degrees F and lower the corresponding AV from <=130.5 degrees 
F to <=108.5 degrees F do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed changes do not add or remove equipment. The proposed 
changes are limited to an instrument setpoint change to an existing 
temperature indicating switch within the Steam Leak Detection 
System. The Steam Leak Detection System is a mitigating system; 
changes to its instrumentation setpoints do not introduce any new 
accident initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the 
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform 
their safety function. The physical establishment and setting of the 
proposed setpoint of the accident mitigation instruments will have 
no direct impact on the plant's normal operating conditions. The 
instrumentation is normally in a monitoring mode and does not 
actively support normal plant operation. No new failure modes are 
being introduced by the proposed changes and the Steam Leak 
Detection System will continue to be operated in the same manner.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to lower the TS HPCI Equipment Room Delta 
Temperature High Isolation Trip Setpoint from <=126 degrees F to 
<=104 degrees F and lower the corresponding AV from <=130.5 degrees 
F to <=108.5 degrees F do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety. The lower trip setpoint will ensure that a 25 gpm 
leak in the HPCI steam line will be isolated on HPCI equipment room 
high differential temperature. The proposed system isolation TS trip 
setpoint was selected to provide equivalent margins that ensure the 
effectiveness of the Steam Leak Detection System isolation system to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident without compromising the 
operability of the HPCI System. The proposed trip setpoint and 
proposed allowable value range maintain adequate margins between 
these new values and the operating range of the HPCI System in order 
to prevent the inadvertent actuation of the Steam Leak Detection 
System isolation system and the loss of the HPCI System. The same 
difference of 4.5 degrees F between the existing trip setpoint and 
AV values and the proposed trip setpoint and AV values is being 
maintained as an allowance for instrument drift. The trip setpoint 
and the AV range is within the specified range of the instruments 
and therefore, the accuracy and drift provides the same margin of 
safety as previously assumed.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket No. 50-315 and 
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien 
County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: June 22, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specifications, Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
3.6.6.5, regarding containment spray nozzles. Currently SR 3.6.6.5 
requires that the nozzles be verified to be unobstructed every 10 
years. The licensee proposed to change the frequency to be event-based, 
specifically, ``following maintenance that could result in nozzle 
blockage.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The NRC staff performed its own analysis, which is 
presented below:

    (1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The containment spray system and its spray nozzles were not 
identified as accident initiators in previously evaluated accidents; 
thus, the proposed change, which affects only the surveillance 
frequency of spray nozzles, cannot and do not have any effect on the 
probability of occurrence of an accident. In addition, since no 
design function of the containment spray system, including the 
nozzles, would be altered by the proposed change of the surveillance 
frequency, the containment spray system will continue to perform its 
original design function, mitigating the consequences of certain 
accidents previously evaluated. Thus, the consequences of accidents 
previously evaluated will not be significantly increased.
    (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 introduce a new mode of plant 
operation and does not involve physical modification to plant 
design. Thus, the proposed change does not involve the possibility 
of introducing any new accident initiators to affect assumptions 
made in previously evaluated accidents. The containment spray system 
will continue to function as originally designed and installed. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    (3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change would only revise containment spray nozzle 
surveillance frequency but will not reduce a margin of safety 
because the change has no effect on any safety analysis methods, 
scenarios, or assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    Based on the above review, it appears that the three standards of 
10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-424 and 
50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke 
County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: June 15, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments request 
the adoption of an approved change to the standard technical 
specifications (STS) for Westinghouse Plants (NUREG-1431), to allow 
relocation of specific TS surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program. The proposed change is described in Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3, 
``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF 
Initiative

[[Page 52043]]

5b.'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML080280275) and was described in the Notice 
of Availability published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 
FR 31996). The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-
425, Revision 3. The proposed change relocates surveillance frequencies 
to a licensee-controlled program, the surveillance frequency control 
program (SFCP). This change is applicable to licensees using 
probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved NEI 04-10, 
``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed 
Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies,'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML071360456).
    The licensee affirmed the applicability to the VEGP of the model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination provided in the 
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996) in its application dated 
June 15, 2010.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the analysis of the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
Technical Specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), 
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, SNC will 
perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained 
in NRC-approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS SFCP. 
NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 methodology provides reasonable acceptance 
guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed 
change to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 
1.177.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request 
involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, 
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30308-2216.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria J. Kulesa.

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

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-
277, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 2, York and 
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: May 27, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would modify the PBAPS, Unit 2, Technical Specification Section 2.1.1 
to revise Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio values.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July 
26, 2010 (FR 75 43574).
    Expiration date of individual notice: August 25, 2010 (public 
comments) and September 24, 2010 (hearing requests).

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

[[Page 52044]]

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

    Date of application for amendments: July 1, 2009, as supplemented 
by letter dated May 20, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation'' and TS 1.1, ``Definitions.'' The amendments support 
plant modifications which would replace the existing source range and 
intermediate range excore detector systems with equivalent neutron 
monitoring systems. The new instrumentation will perform both the 
source range and intermediate range monitoring functions.
    Date of issuance: August 2, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 258 and 253.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments 
revised the licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 
10826). The supplement dated May 20, 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 August 2, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: October 29, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted a license 
condition located in each of the unit's Renewed Facility Operating 
Licenses which restricts the maximum fuel rod average burnup. Deletion 
of this condition would allow the maximum fuel rod average burnup up to 
increase.
    Date of issuance: August 5, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 259 and 254.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 
17441).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: September 3, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised 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.
    Date of issuance: August 9, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 260 and 255.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR 
30444).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: July 1, 2009, as supplemented 
by letter dated May 20, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation.'' The amendments support plant modifications which 
would replace the existing source range and intermediate range excore 
detector systems with equivalent neutron monitoring systems. The new 
instrumentation will perform both the source range and intermediate 
range monitoring functions.
    Date of issuance: August 2, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 257 and 237.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 
10826). The supplement dated May 20, 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 August 2, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: October 29, 2009.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted a license 
condition located in each of the unit's Renewed Facility Operating 
Licenses which restricts the maximum fuel rod average burnup. Deletion 
of this condition would allow the maximum fuel rod average burnup up to 
increase.
    Date of issuance: August 5, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 258 and 238.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 
17441).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 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: August 7, 2008, as supplemented 
on May 7, 2009, and January 19, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The August 7, 2008, submittal 
contained several areas of review that have been

[[Page 52045]]

dispositioned as separate amendment requests. The amendments associated 
with this notice revise the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 Technical 
Specifications (TS) to incorporate Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler 439, ``Elimination of Second Completion Times Limiting 
Time From Discovery of Failure To Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition for 
Operation],'' Revision 2. The TS amendments modify Section 1.3 of the 
PBAPS Unit 2 and 3 TSs to alter the discussion contained in Example 
1.3-3 to eliminate second completion times. Consistent with this 
change, the second completion times associated with TS 3.1.7, ``Standby 
Liquid Control (SLC) System,'' required actions A.2 and B.1, TS 3.8.1, 
``AC Sources--Operating,'' required action A.3, and TS 3.8.7, 
``Distribution Systems--Operating,'' required actions C.1 and D.1 are 
also deleted.
    Date of issuance: July 30, 2010.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 277 and 280.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: 
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 
20744).
    The supplements dated May 7, 2009, and January 19, 2010, 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 July 30, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of application for amendments: December 14, 2009, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 23, June 11, and July 2, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved the 
licensee's request to incorporate a revision to the Final Safety 
Analyses Report Update Section 3.7.1.3 to allow for the use of a 
damping value of 5 percent of the critical damping value for the 
structural dynamic qualification of the control rod drive mechanism 
pressure housings on the replacement reactor vessel head for the design 
earthquake, the double design earthquake, the Hosgri earthquake, and 
the loss-of-coolant accident loading conditions.
    Date of issuance: July 30, 2010.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-207; Unit 2-209.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (75 FR 
13790). The supplemental letters dated April 23, June 11, and July 2, 
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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2010.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of August 2010.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-20694 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P