Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 54390-54400 [2010-21946]
Download as PDF
54390
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
directed by the Antarctic Conservation
Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as
amended by the Antarctic Science,
Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996,
has developed regulations for the
establishment of a permit system for
various activities in Antarctica and
designation of certain animals and
certain geographic areas requiring
special protection. The regulations
establish such a permit system to
designate Antarctic Specially Protected
Areas.
Description of Permit Modification
Requested: The Foundation issued a
permit (2010–010) to Dr. Daniel P. Costa
on January 5, 2010. The issued permit
allows the applicant to census, tag,
weigh, measure, and collect blood and
tissue samples, and instrument
mammals (Weddell, Crabeater, Ross,
Leopard and Southern Elephant seals).
The studies of these animals will help
in understanding how they respond to
temperature fluctuations and how their
foraging behavior and habitat utilization
varies over large spatial and temporal
scales. The applicant requests a
modification to his permit to administer
40–60 gr of 0–18 labeled water and to
attach a small drag inducing device
along with the ARGOS telemetry tag, a
TDR and an accelerometer tag. The 0–
18 water is a stable isotope and should
have no adverse affect on the animal.
This procedure will help to understand
the foraging energy expenditure from
isotopic turnover.
Location: Ross Sea and McMurdo
Sound.
Dated: October 1, 2010 to December 31,
2012.
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010–22130 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0290]
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 August 25,
2010, to September 8, 2010. The last
biweekly notice was published on
August 24, 2010 (75 FR 52039).
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 60day 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
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 EFiling 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 NRCissued 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 ESubmittal 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
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54391
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 plugin 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/esubmittals.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/esubmittals.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 email 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/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54392
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
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. Nontimely 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina;
Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370,
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina;
Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 26,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications to
reflect changes to organization, unit staff
responsibility, and unit staff
qualifications.
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 TS [Technical Specification]
change regarding unit staff qualifications is
an administrative change to clarify the
current requirements for licensed operator
qualifications and training program. With
this change, the TS continue to meet the
current requirements of 10 CFR 55 [Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Part 50 Section 55]. Although licensed
operator qualifications and training may have
an indirect impact on accidents previously
evaluated, the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory
Commission] considered this impact during
the rulemaking process, and by promulgation
of the revised 10 CFR 55 rule, concluded that
this impact remains acceptable as long as the
licensed operator training programs are
certified to be accredited and are based on a
systems approach to training. The Duke
Energy [Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC]
licensed operator training program is
accredited by NANT [National Academy of
Nuclear Training] and is based on a systems
approach to training. The proposed TS
change takes credit for the NANT
accreditation of the licensed operator training
program. The TS requirements for all other
plant staff qualifications remain unchanged.
The proposed TS change regarding
responsibility, organization and high
radiation area is administrative in nature to
reflect the current titles and responsibilities
of station personnel and are consistent with
STS [Standard Technical Specifications].
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Therefore, the proposed TS 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 TS change regarding unit
staff qualifications is an administrative
change to clarify the current requirements for
licensed operator qualifications and training
program and to conform to the revised 10
CFR 55. As discussed above, although
licensed operator qualifications and training
may have an indirect impact on the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated, the NRC considered this impact
during the rule making process, and by
promulgation of the revised rule, concluded
that this impact remains acceptable as long
as licensed operator training programs are
certified to be accredited and based on a
systems approach to training. As previously
noted, the Duke Energy licensed operator
training program is accredited by NANT and
is based on a systems approach to training.
The proposed TS change takes credit for the
NANT accreditation of the licensed operator
training program. The TS requirements for all
other plant staff qualifications remain
unchanged. Additionally, the proposed TS
change does not affect plant design,
hardware, system operation, or procedures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
The proposed TS change regarding
responsibility, organization and high
radiation area does not impact any plant
systems that are accident initiators nor does
it adversely impact any accident mitigating
system. No physical changes are being made
to the plant. This change is administrative in
nature to reflect the current titles and
responsibilities of station personnel and
consistent with STS. 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 the margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change regarding unit
staff qualifications is an administrative
change to clarify the current requirements
applicable to licensed operator qualifications
and training program. With this change, the
TS continue to be consistent with the
requirements of 10 CFR 55. The TS
qualification requirements for all other plant
staff remain unchanged. Licensed operator
qualifications and training can have an
indirect impact on the margin of safety.
However, the NRC considered this impact
during the rulemaking process, and by
promulgation of the revised 10 CFR Part 55,
determined that this impact remains
acceptable when licensees maintain a
licensed operator training program that is
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
accredited and based on a systems approach
to training. As noted previously, the Duke
Energy licensed operator training program is
accredited by NANT and is based on a
systems approach to training.
The NRC has concluded, as stated in
NUREG–1262, that the standards and
guidelines provided by the Institute for
Nuclear Power Operations’ NANT in their
training accreditation program are equivalent
to those put forth or endorsed by the NRC.
As a result, maintaining a NANT accredited,
systems approach to licensed operator
training program is equivalent to maintaining
an NRC approved licensed operator training
program which conforms to applicable NRC
Regulatory Guides or NRC endorsed industry
standards. The margin of safety is maintained
by virtue of maintaining the NANT
accredited licensed operator training
program.
In addition, the NRC published RIS 2001–
001 to familiarize licensees with the NRC’s
current guidelines for the qualification and
training of RO [reactor operator] and SO
[senior operator] license applicants. This
document again acknowledges that the
NANT guidelines for education and
experience outline acceptable methods for
implementing the NRC’s regulations in this
area.
The proposed TS change regarding
responsibility, organization and high
radiation area is administrative in nature to
reflect the current titles and responsibilities
of station personnel and is consistent with
STS. Systems and components are not
affected, and therefore are capable of
performing as designed. The performance of
fission product barriers will not be impacted
by this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
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: Lara S. Nichols,
Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy
Corporation, 526 South Church Street—
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina;
Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370,
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina;
Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 28,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise the Emergency Plans to reflect
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
changes to on-shift staffing and
augmentation times.
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?
The proposed amendment changes the
minimum staffing levels and augmentation
times for emergency response personnel. The
proposed changes do not impact the physical
configuration or function of plant structures,
systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner
in which SSCs are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The
Emergency Plan is activated in response to an
accident. It is not an initiator of any accident.
The purpose of the Emergency Plan is to
assist in mitigating the consequences of
accidents. These changes do not result in a
reduction of the emergency response
organization’s capability to respond to an
emergency. The emergency planning
functions of radiological accident assessment
and support of operational accident
assessment as well as protective actions (inplant) are maintained. The proposed changes
do not affect the ability of the plan to be a
comprehensive emergency plan.
Therefore, it is concluded that these
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?
The proposed amendment does not involve
any change in the design, configuration, or
operation of the nuclear plants. The current
plant design, design bases, and plant safety
analysis will remain the same. The Limiting
Conditions for Operations, Limiting Safety
System Settings and Safety Limits as
specified in the Technical Specifications are
not affected by the proposed changes. As
such, the plant conditions for which the
design basis accident analyses were
performed remain valid. The proposed
amendment does not introduce a new mode
of plant operation or new accident
precursors, does not involve any physical
alterations to plant configurations, or make
changes to system set points that could
initiate a new or different kind of accident.
The Emergency Plan is used to respond to an
accident. These changes do not result in a
reduction of the emergency response
organization’s capability to respond to an
emergency. The proposed changes do not
affect the ability of the plan to be a
comprehensive emergency plan.
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 amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54393
The proposed amendment does not involve
a change in the design, configuration, or
operation of the nuclear plants. The changes
do not affect either the way in which the
plant structures, systems and components
(SSCs) perform their safety function or their
design and licensing basis. Plant safety
margins are established through Limiting
Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety
System Settings and Safety Limits specified
in the Technical Specifications. Because
there is no change to the physical design of
the plant, there is no change to any of these
margins.
Therefore, it is concluded that these
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: Lara S. Nichols,
Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy
Corporation, 526 South Church Street—
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: March
17, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications by
relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled
program with the implementation of
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04–10,
‘‘Risk-Informed Technical Specification
Initiative 5B, Risk-Informed Method for
Control of Surveillance Frequencies.’’
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the
specified frequencies for periodic
surveillance requirements to licensee control
under a new SFCP [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
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
54394
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for
the surveillance requirements, and be
capable of performing any mitigation
function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not significantly
increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from
utilizing the proposed change. The changes
do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a change in
the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not
impose any new or different requirements.
The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes
are consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions and current plant operating
practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
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
[Nuclear Regulatory Commission] will
continue to be met as described in the plant
licensing basis (including the final safety
analysis report and bases to TS [Technical
Specification]), 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, Duke [Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC] will perform a probabilistic risk
evaluation using the guidance contained in
NRC approved NEI 04–10, Rev. 1 in
accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI [Nuclear
Energy Institute] 04–10, Rev. 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines
and methods for evaluating the risk increase
of proposed changes to surveillance
frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide
1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on 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: Lara S. Nichols,
Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
Corporation, 526 South Church Street—
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 6,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications to
support 24-month fuel cycle operations.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes the
surveillance frequency from 18 months to 24
months for Surveillance Requirements in the
Technical Specifications that are normally a
function of the refueling interval.
Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 would allow
a maximum surveillance interval of 30
months for these surveillances. Duke
Energy’s [Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC]
evaluations have shown that the reliability of
protective instrumentation and equipment
will be preserved for the maximum allowable
surveillance interval.
The proposed change does not involve any
change to the design or functional
requirements of the associated systems. That
is, the proposed Technical Specification (TS)
change neither degrades the performance of,
nor increases the challenges to any safety
systems assumed to function in the plant
safety analysis. The proposed change will not
give rise to any increase in operation power
level, fuel operating limits or effluents. The
proposed change does not affect any accident
precursors since no accidents previously
evaluated relate to the frequency of
surveillance testing and the revision to the
frequency does not introduce any accident
initiators. The proposed change does not
impact the usefulness of the Surveillance
Requirements (SRs) in evaluating the
operability of required systems and
components or the manner in which the
surveillances are performed.
In addition, evaluation of the proposed TS
change demonstrates that the availability of
equipment and systems required to prevent
or mitigate the radiological consequences of
an accident is not significantly affected
because of the availability of redundant
systems and equipment or the high reliability
of the equipment. Since the impact on the
systems is minimal, it is concluded that the
overall impact on the plant safety analysis is
negligible.
Furthermore, an historical review of
surveillance test results and associated
maintenance records indicates there is no
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
evidence of any failure that would invalidate
the above conclusions. Therefore, the
proposed TS change does not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not require
a change to the plant design nor the mode of
plant operation. No new or different
equipment is being installed. No installed
equipment is being operated in a different
manner. As a result, no new failure modes
are being introduced. In addition, the
proposed change does not impact the
usefulness of the SRs in evaluating the
operability of required systems and
components or the manner in which the
surveillances are performed. Furthermore, an
historical review of surveillance test results
and associated maintenance records indicates
there is no evidence of any failure that would
invalidate the above conclusions. Therefore,
the implementation of the proposed change
will not create the possibility for an accident
of a new or different type than previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes the
surveillance frequency from 18 months to 24
months for Surveillance Requirements in the
Technical Specifications that are normally a
function of the refueling interval.
Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 would allow
a maximum surveillance interval of 30
months for these surveillances. Although the
proposed change will result in an increase in
the interval between surveillance tests, the
impact on system availability is small based
on other, more frequent testing that is
performed, the existence of redundant
systems and equipment or overall system
reliability. There is no evidence of any timedependent failures that would impact the
availability of the systems. The proposed
change does not significantly impact the
condition or performance of structures,
systems and components relied upon for
accident mitigation. This change does not
alter the existing TS allowable values or
analytical limits. The existing operating
margin between plant conditions and actual
plant setpoints is not significantly reduced
due to these changes. The assumptions and
results in any safety analyses are not
significantly impacted. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in 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: Lara S. Nichols,
Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy
Corporation, 526 South Church Street—
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No.1, DeWitt County,
Illinois
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Date of amendment request: June 4,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
remove a time-related item from
Technical Specifications (TS) 3.6.5.1,
‘‘Drywell,’’ and corrects typographical
errors introduced into the TS in
previous license amendments.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration: As required by
10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration
is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The initial conditions and methodologies
used in the accident analyses remain
unchanged. The proposed changes do not
change or alter the design assumptions for
the systems or components used to mitigate
the consequences of an accident. Therefore,
accident analyses results are not impacted.
All changes proposed by EGC in this
amendment request are administrative in
nature, and include the removal [of] a timerelated requirement that has been satisfied
and the correction of typographical-type
administrative errors. There are no physical
changes to the facilities, nor any changes to
the station operating procedures, limiting
conditions for operation, or limiting safety
system settings.
Based on the above discussion, 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
None of the proposed changes affect the
design or operation of any system, structure,
or component in the plant. The safety
functions of the related structures, systems,
or components are not changed in any
manner, nor is the reliability of any structure,
system, or component reduced by the revised
surveillance or testing requirements. The
changes do not affect the manner by which
the facility is operated and do not change any
facility design feature, structure, system, or
component. No new or different type of
equipment will be installed. Since there is no
change to the facility or operating
procedures, and the safety functions and
reliability of structures, systems, or
components are not affected, the proposed
changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
Based on this evaluation, the proposed
changes do not create the possibility of a new
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 the TS are
administrative in nature and have no impact
on the margin of safety of any of the TS.
There is no impact on safety limits or
limiting safety system settings. The changes
do not affect any plant safety parameters or
setpoints.
Based on this evaluation, 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: Mr. Bradley J.
Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Southern California Edison Company, et
al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362,
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 2 and 3, San Diego County,
California
Date of amendment requests: August
16, 2010.
Description of amendment requests:
The proposed amendments would
revise the Completion Time of
Condition A of Technical Specification
3.8.1, ‘‘AC [Alternating Current]
Sources—Operating,’’ on a one-time
basis to allow a Completion Time of 10
days.
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.
This proposed Technical Specification
amendment provides a one-time per train
extension of the Completion Time of
Condition A of Technical Specification 3.8.1,
‘‘AC Sources—Operating.’’ Condition A will
be revised on a one-time basis to allow a
Completion Time of 10 days. This one-time
change would be used once on each train on
each unit. The revised Completion Time
accommodates maintenance which is to be
performed on the 4.16 kV [kilo volt] Class 1E
breaker cubicles on both units to replace
cracked bottle (bushing) flanges. The bottle
flange replacement requires extensive work
and cannot be completed within the existing
72-hour (3-day) Completion Time.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54395
The consequences associated with
extending the Completion Time by 7 days
have been evaluated and there is no
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The minimum requirements of 10 CFR 50
Appendix A, GDC [General Design Criteria]
17 with the alternate preferred power source
circuit unavailable to one of the two
redundant 4.16 kV Class 1E buses at a time
will continue to be met.
Further, the additional time to effect
repairs for the bottles will allow for full
inspection and replacement of any degraded
condition in a timely manner with the
minimum impact to safety.
Consequently, this change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The request for this one-time per train
Technical Specification change involves an
extension of the Completion Time for
Technical Specification 3.8.1, Required
Action A.2, associated with restoring
compliance with the Technical Specification.
The proposed change will not physically
alter the present plant configuration nor
adversely affect how the plant is currently
operated. The plant configuration that would
result from use of the revised Completion
Time is currently allowed by existing
Technical Specifications, only for a shorter
duration. This Completion Time change does
not create a new or different kind of accident
from any kind of accident previously
evaluated.
Consequently, there is no possibility of a
new or different kind of accident due to this
change.
3. Does the proposed change involve
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This proposed Technical Specification
amendment provides a one-time per train
extension of the Completion Time of
Condition A of Technical Specification 3.8.1,
‘‘AC Sources—Operating.’’ Condition A will
be revised on a one-time basis to allow a
Completion Time of 10 days. This one-time
change would be used once on each train on
each unit. The revised Completion Time
accommodates maintenance which is to be
performed on the 4.16 kV Class 1E breaker
cubicles on both units to replace cracked
bottle (bushing) flanges. The bottle flanges
replacement requires extensive work and
cannot be completed within the existing 72hour (3-day) Completion Time.
The minimum requirements of 10 CFR 50
Appendix A, GDC 17 with the alternate
preferred power source circuit unavailable to
one of the two redundant 4.16 kV Class 1E
buses at a time continues to be met.
Further, the additional time to effect
repairs for the bottles will allow for full
inspection and replacement of any degraded
condition in a timely manner with the
minimum impact to safety.
Consequently, there is no significant
reduction in a margin of safety due to this
change.
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
54396
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K.
Porter, Esquire, Southern California
Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove
Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company
(VEPCO), Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–
281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2 (Surry 1 and 2), Surry County,
Virginia
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Date of amendment request: May 6,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
VEPCO proposes a change to the Surry
1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS) to
update the cumulative core burnup
applicability limit Effective Full Power
Years (EFPY) for Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) Heatup and Cooldown
Pressure/Temperature (P/T) Limits, Low
Temperature Overpressure Protection
System (LTOPS) Setpoint, and LTOPS
Enabling Temperature (T-enable).
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 change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Surry
Units 1 and 2 TS RCS Heatup and Cooldown
Limitations figures to reflect an increase in
the cumulative core burnup applicability
limit to 48 EFPY. The existing Surry TS RCS
P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoint, and T-enable
value remain valid and conservative for
cumulative core burnups up to 48 EFPY, thus
increasing the cumulative core burnup
applicability limit for RCS P/T Limits,
LTOPS Setpoints and LTOPS T-enable to 48
EFPY has no bearing on the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. These evaluations address the
LTOPS design basis mass addition accident
(inadvertent charging pump start), heat
addition accident (Reactor Coolant Pump
(RCP) start with a secondary-to-primary
temperature difference of 50°F) and
Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) events, the
analysis of which is covered by 10 CFR
50.61. The increased cumulative core burnup
applicability limit is accomplished through
application of improved analytical margins
provided by Topical Report BAW–2308,
Revision 2–A, ‘‘Initial RTNDT of Linde 80
Weld Materials,’’ which was approved by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
NRC in March 2008 for use in plant-specific
applications. Dominion assessed the effect of
the use of the analytical margins and
determined that the existing TS limits (RCS
P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoints and LTOPS Tenable) governing reactor vessel integrity
remain valid and conservative for cumulative
core burnups up to 48 EFPY. No changes to
plant systems, structures or components are
proposed, and no new operating modes are
established. Furthermore, plant operating
limits and setpoints are not being changed.
Therefore, there is no increase in the
probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No changes to plant operating conditions,
operating limits or setpoints are being
proposed and no changes to plant systems,
structures or components are being
implemented. The existing Surry TS RCS
P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoint, and T-enable
value remain valid and conservative for
cumulative core burnups up to 48 EFPY.
Analyses supporting the increased
cumulative core burnup applicability limit
were performed in accordance with
applicable regulatory guidance and confirm
that design functions (i.e., ensuring that
combined pressure and thermal stresses
under normal operation heatup and
cooldown conditions and under design basis
accident conditions at low temperature) are
maintained. Therefore, the proposed change
does not create the possibility of any accident
or malfunction of a different type previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The increased cumulative core burnup
applicability limit is accomplished through
application of improved analytical margins
provided by Topical Report BAW–2308,
Revision 2–A, which was approved by the
NRC in March 2008 for use in plant-specific
applications. Dominion [VEPCO] assessed
the effect of the use of the analytical margins
and determined that the existing TS P/T
Limits, LTOPS Setpoints, and LTOPS
T-enable governing reactor vessel integrity
remain valid and conservative for cumulative
core burnups up to 48 EFPY. No changes to
plant systems, structures or components are
proposed, and no new operating modes are
established. Furthermore, plant operating
limits and setpoints are not being changed.
Consequently, the existing TS P/T Limit
curves, LTOPS Setpoint, and LTOPS
T-enable value provide acceptable margin to
vessel fracture under both normal operation
and LTOPS design basis (mass addition and
heat addition) accident conditions for
cumulative core burnups up to 48 EFPY.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
result in 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
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
St., RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for A Hearing in
connection with these actions was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and
(3) the Commission’s related letter,
Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the Commission’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
Reference staff at 1–(800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Duke Power Company, LLC, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
York County, South Carolina; Duke
Power Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–
369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina; Duke Power
Company, LLC, Docket Nos.
50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
Oconee County, South Carolina
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Date of application of amendments:
September 30, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications to allow testing
containment spray nozzles for nozzle
blockage following activities which
could result in nozzle blockage, rather
than a fixed periodic basis. Currently
the testing for nozzle blockage is
performed every 10 years.
Date of issuance: August 24, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 261 and 256.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments
revised the licenses and technical
specifications.
Amendment Nos.: 259 and 239.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments
revised the licenses and technical
specifications.
Amendment Nos.: 369, 371, and 370.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55:
Amendments revised the licenses and
technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 10828).
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 24,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249,
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2
and 3, Grundy County, Illinois; Docket
Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad Cities
Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2,
Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments:
August 28, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated February 5 and June 2,
2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise Technical
Specification 3.4.5, ‘‘RCS Leakage
Detection Instrumentation,’’ at each site
to support implementation of an
alternate method of verifying that
leakage in the drywell is within limits.
Date of issuance: August 16, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 235 and 228, 247
and 242.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–19, DPR–25, DPR–29 and
DPR–30. The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 3, 2009 (74 FR
56886). The February 5 and June 2,
2010, supplements contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC
staff’s initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 16,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of application for amendments:
December 28, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated April 19, April 23, and
June 17, 2010.
Brief description of amendments:
These amendments revise the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications to reflect an increase in
the rated thermal power from 1650
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1677 MWt
(1.64 percent increase). The increase is
based upon increased feedwater flow
measurement accuracy achieved by
using high-accuracy Caldon
CheckPlusTM Leading Edge Flow Meter
ultrasonic flow measurement
instrumentation.
Date of issuance: August 17, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment Nos.: 197, 186.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised
the License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26291).
The supplemental letters contained
clarifying information and did not
change the initial no significant hazards
consideration determination, and did
not expand the scope of the original
Federal Register notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54397
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 17,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–272,
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
No. 1, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment:
September 21, 2009, as supplemented
on February 24, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 6.8.4.f, ‘‘Primary
Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,’’ to allow a one-time extension
of the Type A integrated leak rate test
(ILRT) interval from 10 to 15 years.
Specifically, the amendment requires
that the next Type A ILRT be performed
no later than May 7, 2016.
Date of issuance: August 16, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment No.: 296.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
70: The amendment revised the TSs and
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 17, 2009 (74 FR
59262).
The letter dated February 24, 2010,
provided clarifying information that did
not change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination or expand the application
beyond the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 16,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272
and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendments:
September 23, 2009, as supplemented
on December 21, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Delete TS
4.0.5, which pertains to surveillance
requirements for inservice inspection
(ISI) and inservice testing (IST) of
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components; (2)
add a new TS for the IST Program to
Section 6.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’
of the TSs; and (3) change TSs that
currently reference TS 4.0.5 to reference
the IST Program or ISI Program, as
applicable.
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
54398
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Date of issuance: August 20, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment Nos.: 297 and 279.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
70 and DPR–75: The amendments
revised the TSs and the Facility
Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 29, 2009 (74 FR
68871).
The letter dated December 21, 2009,
provided clarifying information that did
not change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination or expand the application
beyond the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 20,
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
reasonable opportunity for the public to
comment, using its best efforts to make
available to the public means of
communication for the public to
respond quickly, and in the case of
telephone comments, the comments
have been recorded or transcribed as
appropriate and the licensee has been
informed of the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act
in a timely way would have resulted, for
example, in derating or shutdown of a
nuclear power plant or in prevention of
either resumption of operation or of
increase in power output up to the
plant’s licensed power level, the
Commission may not have had an
opportunity to provide for public
comment on its no significant hazards
consideration determination. In such
case, the license amendment has been
issued without opportunity for
comment. If there has been some time
for public comment but less than 30
days, the Commission may provide an
opportunity for public comment. If
comments have been requested, it is so
stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever
possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission
may issue and make an amendment
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the pendency before it of a request for
a hearing from any person, in advance
of the holding and completion of any
required hearing, where it has
determined that no significant hazards
consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this
determination is contained in the
documents related to this action.
Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the application for
amendment, (2) the amendment to
Facility Operating License, and (3) the
Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Assessment, as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the Commission’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR
Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
The Commission is also offering an
opportunity for a hearing with respect to
the issuance of the amendment. Within
60 days after the date of publication of
this notice, any person(s) whose interest
may be affected by this action may file
a request for a hearing and a petition to
intervene with respect to issuance of the
amendment to the subject facility
operating license. Requests for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene
shall be filed in accordance with the
Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10
CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission’s
PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland,
and electronically on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there
are problems in accessing the document,
contact the PDR Reference staff at
1 (800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by
e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner must also
provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the
petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a
material issue of law or fact.1
Contentions shall be limited to matters
within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention
must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner to relief. A
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy
these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Each contention shall be given a
separate numeric or alpha designation
within one of the following groups:
1. Technical—Primarily concerns/
issues relating to technical and/or
health and safety matters discussed or
referenced in the applications.
2. Environmental—Primarily
concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the
environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous—Does not fall into
one of the categories outlined above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two
or more petitioners/requestors seek to
co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/
requestors shall jointly designate a
representative who shall have the
1 To the extent that the applications contain
attachments and supporting documents that are not
publicly available because they are asserted to
contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information
should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel
and discuss the need for a protective order.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
authority to act for the petitioners/
requestors with respect to that
contention. If a requestor/petitioner
seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the
requestor/petitioner who seeks to adopt
the contention must either agree that the
sponsoring requestor/petitioner shall act
as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the
sponsoring requestor/petitioner a
representative who shall have the
authority to act for the petitioners/
requestors with respect to that
contention.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has
made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, if a hearing is
requested, it will not stay the
effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the
amendment is in effect.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling 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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54399
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 ESubmittal 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 plugin 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 email 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
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54400
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices
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 tollfree 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:24 Sep 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket No. 50–425, Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, Unit 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August
18, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment revises Technical
Specifications (TS) 3.7.14, ‘‘Engineered
Safety Features (ESF) Room Cooler and
Safety-Related Chiller System’’ such
that, with one safety-related chiller train
inoperable, the allowed completion time
for Condition A is extended from 72
hours to 14 days, on a one-time-only
basis. The 14 day allowable outage time
will allow time to repair the Unit 2
A-train ESF chiller.
Date of issuance: August 19, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 139.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
81: Amendment revises the technical
specifications.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No. The
Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment, finding of emergency
circumstances, State consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a safety evaluation dated August 19,
2010.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H.
Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600
Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30308–2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day
of August 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–21946 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am]
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR
28,710 (1972), and the Commission’s
regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300,
2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321,
notice is hereby given that an Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is
being established to preside over the
following proceeding:
Florida Power & Light Company
(Turkey Point Units 6 and 7)
This proceeding concerns petitions to
intervene submitted (1) by the Village of
Pinecrest, Florida, (2) by Citizens for
Safe Energy, Inc., and (3) jointly by
Mark Oncavage, Dan Kipnis, Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy, and National
Parks Conservation Association. These
petitions were submitted in response to
a June 18, 2010 Notice of Hearing and
Opportunity to Petition for Leave to
Intervene (75 FR 34,777). Petitioners
challenge the application filed by
Florida Power & Light Company
pursuant to Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52
for a combined license for Turkey Point
Units 6 and 7, to be located in
Homestead, Florida.
The Board is comprised of the
following administrative judges:
E. Roy Hawkens, Chair, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Dr. Michael F. Kennedy, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Dr. William C. Burnett, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
All correspondence, documents, and
other materials shall be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule,
which the NRC promulgated in August
2007 (72 FR 49,139).
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st
day of August 2010.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010–22178 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52–040–COL and 52–041–
COL; ASLBP No. 10–903–02–COL–BD01]
Florida Power and Light Company;
Establishment of Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board
Submission of Information Collections
for OMB Review; Comment Request;
Payment of Premiums; Termination
Premium
AGENCY:
Pursuant to delegation by the
Commission dated December 29, 1972,
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of request for extension
of OMB approval.
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54390-54400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21946]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0290]
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 August 25, 2010, to September 8, 2010. The
last biweekly notice was published on August 24, 2010 (75 FR 52039).
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 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
[[Page 54391]]
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 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
[[Page 54392]]
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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units
1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-
414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications to reflect changes to organization,
unit staff responsibility, and unit staff qualifications.
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 TS [Technical Specification] change regarding unit
staff qualifications is an administrative change to clarify the
current requirements for licensed operator qualifications and
training program. With this change, the TS continue to meet the
current requirements of 10 CFR 55 [Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 Section 55]. Although licensed operator
qualifications and training may have an indirect impact on accidents
previously evaluated, the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission]
considered this impact during the rulemaking process, and by
promulgation of the revised 10 CFR 55 rule, concluded that this
impact remains acceptable as long as the licensed operator training
programs are certified to be accredited and are based on a systems
approach to training. The Duke Energy [Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC]
licensed operator training program is accredited by NANT [National
Academy of Nuclear Training] and is based on a systems approach to
training. The proposed TS change takes credit for the NANT
accreditation of the licensed operator training program. The TS
requirements for all other plant staff qualifications remain
unchanged.
The proposed TS change regarding responsibility, organization
and high radiation area is administrative in nature to reflect the
current titles and responsibilities of station personnel and are
consistent with STS [Standard Technical Specifications].
Therefore, the proposed TS 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 TS change regarding unit staff qualifications is an
administrative change to clarify the current requirements for
licensed operator qualifications and training program and to conform
to the revised 10 CFR 55. As discussed above, although licensed
operator qualifications and training may have an indirect impact on
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated, the NRC considered this impact during
the rule making process, and by promulgation of the revised rule,
concluded that this impact remains acceptable as long as licensed
operator training programs are certified to be accredited and based
on a systems approach to training. As previously noted, the Duke
Energy licensed operator training program is accredited by NANT and
is based on a systems approach to training. The proposed TS change
takes credit for the NANT accreditation of the licensed operator
training program. The TS requirements for all other plant staff
qualifications remain unchanged. Additionally, the proposed TS
change does not affect plant design, hardware, system operation, or
procedures. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
The proposed TS change regarding responsibility, organization
and high radiation area does not impact any plant systems that are
accident initiators nor does it adversely impact any accident
mitigating system. No physical changes are being made to the plant.
This change is administrative in nature to reflect the current
titles and responsibilities of station personnel and consistent with
STS. 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 the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change regarding unit staff qualifications is an
administrative change to clarify the current requirements applicable
to licensed operator qualifications and training program. With this
change, the TS continue to be consistent with the requirements of 10
CFR 55. The TS qualification requirements for all other plant staff
remain unchanged. Licensed operator qualifications and training can
have an indirect impact on the margin of safety. However, the NRC
considered this impact during the rulemaking process, and by
promulgation of the revised 10 CFR Part 55, determined that this
impact remains acceptable when licensees maintain a licensed
operator training program that is
[[Page 54393]]
accredited and based on a systems approach to training. As noted
previously, the Duke Energy licensed operator training program is
accredited by NANT and is based on a systems approach to training.
The NRC has concluded, as stated in NUREG-1262, that the
standards and guidelines provided by the Institute for Nuclear Power
Operations' NANT in their training accreditation program are
equivalent to those put forth or endorsed by the NRC. As a result,
maintaining a NANT accredited, systems approach to licensed operator
training program is equivalent to maintaining an NRC approved
licensed operator training program which conforms to applicable NRC
Regulatory Guides or NRC endorsed industry standards. The margin of
safety is maintained by virtue of maintaining the NANT accredited
licensed operator training program.
In addition, the NRC published RIS 2001-001 to familiarize
licensees with the NRC's current guidelines for the qualification
and training of RO [reactor operator] and SO [senior operator]
license applicants. This document again acknowledges that the NANT
guidelines for education and experience outline acceptable methods
for implementing the NRC's regulations in this area.
The proposed TS change regarding responsibility, organization
and high radiation area is administrative in nature to reflect the
current titles and responsibilities of station personnel and is
consistent with STS. Systems and components are not affected, and
therefore are capable of performing as designed. The performance of
fission product barriers will not be impacted by this proposed
change.
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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units
1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-
414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 28, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Emergency Plans to reflect changes to on-shift staffing and
augmentation times.
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?
The proposed amendment changes the minimum staffing levels and
augmentation times for emergency response personnel. The proposed
changes do not impact the physical configuration or function of
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The Emergency Plan is activated in response to an accident. It is
not an initiator of any accident. The purpose of the Emergency Plan
is to assist in mitigating the consequences of accidents. These
changes do not result in a reduction of the emergency response
organization's capability to respond to an emergency. The emergency
planning functions of radiological accident assessment and support
of operational accident assessment as well as protective actions
(in-plant) are maintained. The proposed changes do not affect the
ability of the plan to be a comprehensive emergency plan.
Therefore, it is concluded that these 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?
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the
design, configuration, or operation of the nuclear plants. The
current plant design, design bases, and plant safety analysis will
remain the same. The Limiting Conditions for Operations, Limiting
Safety System Settings and Safety Limits as specified in the
Technical Specifications are not affected by the proposed changes.
As such, the plant conditions for which the design basis accident
analyses were performed remain valid. The proposed amendment does
not introduce a new mode of plant operation or new accident
precursors, does not involve any physical alterations to plant
configurations, or make changes to system set points that could
initiate a new or different kind of accident. The Emergency Plan is
used to respond to an accident. These changes do not result in a
reduction of the emergency response organization's capability to
respond to an emergency. The proposed changes do not affect the
ability of the plan to be a comprehensive emergency plan.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the design,
configuration, or operation of the nuclear plants. The changes do
not affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems and
components (SSCs) perform their safety function or their design and
licensing basis. Plant safety margins are established through
Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings
and Safety Limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Because
there is no change to the physical design of the plant, there is no
change to any of these margins.
Therefore, it is concluded that these 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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 17, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the implementation of
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical
Specification Initiative 5B, Risk-Informed Method for Control of
Surveillance Frequencies.''
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
SFCP [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
[[Page 54394]]
be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance
requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function
assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of
any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
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 [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] will continue to be met as
described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety
analysis report and bases to TS [Technical Specification]), 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, Duke [Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC] will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance
contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the
TS SFCP. NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 6, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications to support 24-month fuel cycle
operations.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes the surveillance frequency from
18 months to 24 months for Surveillance Requirements in the
Technical Specifications that are normally a function of the
refueling interval. Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 would allow a
maximum surveillance interval of 30 months for these surveillances.
Duke Energy's [Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC] evaluations have shown
that the reliability of protective instrumentation and equipment
will be preserved for the maximum allowable surveillance interval.
The proposed change does not involve any change to the design or
functional requirements of the associated systems. That is, the
proposed Technical Specification (TS) change neither degrades the
performance of, nor increases the challenges to any safety systems
assumed to function in the plant safety analysis. The proposed
change will not give rise to any increase in operation power level,
fuel operating limits or effluents. The proposed change does not
affect any accident precursors since no accidents previously
evaluated relate to the frequency of surveillance testing and the
revision to the frequency does not introduce any accident
initiators. The proposed change does not impact the usefulness of
the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) in evaluating the operability of
required systems and components or the manner in which the
surveillances are performed.
In addition, evaluation of the proposed TS change demonstrates
that the availability of equipment and systems required to prevent
or mitigate the radiological consequences of an accident is not
significantly affected because of the availability of redundant
systems and equipment or the high reliability of the equipment.
Since the impact on the systems is minimal, it is concluded that the
overall impact on the plant safety analysis is negligible.
Furthermore, an historical review of surveillance test results
and associated maintenance records indicates there is no evidence of
any failure that would invalidate the above conclusions. Therefore,
the proposed TS change does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not require a change to the plant
design nor the mode of plant operation. No new or different
equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is being
operated in a different manner. As a result, no new failure modes
are being introduced. In addition, the proposed change does not
impact the usefulness of the SRs in evaluating the operability of
required systems and components or the manner in which the
surveillances are performed. Furthermore, an historical review of
surveillance test results and associated maintenance records
indicates there is no evidence of any failure that would invalidate
the above conclusions. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed
change will not create the possibility for an accident of a new or
different type than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes the surveillance frequency from
18 months to 24 months for Surveillance Requirements in the
Technical Specifications that are normally a function of the
refueling interval. Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 would allow a
maximum surveillance interval of 30 months for these surveillances.
Although the proposed change will result in an increase in the
interval between surveillance tests, the impact on system
availability is small based on other, more frequent testing that is
performed, the existence of redundant systems and equipment or
overall system reliability. There is no evidence of any time-
dependent failures that would impact the availability of the
systems. The proposed change does not significantly impact the
condition or performance of structures, systems and components
relied upon for accident mitigation. This change does not alter the
existing TS allowable values or analytical limits. The existing
operating margin between plant conditions and actual plant setpoints
is not significantly reduced due to these changes. The assumptions
and results in any safety analyses are not significantly impacted.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in 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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
[[Page 54395]]
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No.1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 4, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
remove a time-related item from Technical Specifications (TS) 3.6.5.1,
``Drywell,'' and corrects typographical errors introduced into the TS
in previous license amendments.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration: As
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The initial conditions and methodologies used in the accident
analyses remain unchanged. The proposed changes do not change or
alter the design assumptions for the systems or components used to
mitigate the consequences of an accident. Therefore, accident
analyses results are not impacted.
All changes proposed by EGC in this amendment request are
administrative in nature, and include the removal [of] a time-
related requirement that has been satisfied and the correction of
typographical-type administrative errors. There are no physical
changes to the facilities, nor any changes to the station operating
procedures, limiting conditions for operation, or limiting safety
system settings.
Based on the above discussion, 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
None of the proposed changes affect the design or operation of
any system, structure, or component in the plant. The safety
functions of the related structures, systems, or components are not
changed in any manner, nor is the reliability of any structure,
system, or component reduced by the revised surveillance or testing
requirements. The changes do not affect the manner by which the
facility is operated and do not change any facility design feature,
structure, system, or component. No new or different type of
equipment will be installed. Since there is no change to the
facility or operating procedures, and the safety functions and
reliability of structures, systems, or components are not affected,
the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Based on this evaluation, 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 the TS are administrative in nature and
have no impact on the margin of safety of any of the TS. There is no
impact on safety limits or limiting safety system settings. The
changes do not affect any plant safety parameters or setpoints.
Based on this evaluation, 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: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment requests: August 16, 2010.
Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments would
revise the Completion Time of Condition A of Technical Specification
3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' on a one-time
basis to allow a Completion Time of 10 days.
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.
This proposed Technical Specification amendment provides a one-
time per train extension of the Completion Time of Condition A of
Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating.'' Condition
A will be revised on a one-time basis to allow a Completion Time of
10 days. This one-time change would be used once on each train on
each unit. The revised Completion Time accommodates maintenance
which is to be performed on the 4.16 kV [kilo volt] Class 1E breaker
cubicles on both units to replace cracked bottle (bushing) flanges.
The bottle flange replacement requires extensive work and cannot be
completed within the existing 72-hour (3-day) Completion Time.
The consequences associated with extending the Completion Time
by 7 days have been evaluated and there is no significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The minimum requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC [General
Design Criteria] 17 with the alternate preferred power source
circuit unavailable to one of the two redundant 4.16 kV Class 1E
buses at a time will continue to be met.
Further, the additional time to effect repairs for the bottles
will allow for full inspection and replacement of any degraded
condition in a timely manner with the minimum impact to safety.
Consequently, this change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The request for this one-time per train Technical Specification
change involves an extension of the Completion Time for Technical
Specification 3.8.1, Required Action A.2, associated with restoring
compliance with the Technical Specification. The proposed change
will not physically alter the present plant configuration nor
adversely affect how the plant is currently operated. The plant
configuration that would result from use of the revised Completion
Time is currently allowed by existing Technical Specifications, only
for a shorter duration. This Completion Time change does not create
a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident
previously evaluated.
Consequently, there is no possibility of a new or different kind
of accident due to this change.
3. Does the proposed change involve significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This proposed Technical Specification amendment provides a one-
time per train extension of the Completion Time of Condition A of
Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating.'' Condition
A will be revised on a one-time basis to allow a Completion Time of
10 days. This one-time change would be used once on each train on
each unit. The revised Completion Time accommodates maintenance
which is to be performed on the 4.16 kV Class 1E breaker cubicles on
both units to replace cracked bottle (bushing) flanges. The bottle
flanges replacement requires extensive work and cannot be completed
within the existing 72-hour (3-day) Completion Time.
The minimum requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 17 with
the alternate preferred power source circuit unavailable to one of
the two redundant 4.16 kV Class 1E buses at a time continues to be
met.
Further, the additional time to effect repairs for the bottles
will allow for full inspection and replacement of any degraded
condition in a timely manner with the minimum impact to safety.
Consequently, there is no significant reduction in a margin of
safety due to this change.
[[Page 54396]]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO), Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Surry 1 and 2), Surry
County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 6, 2010.
Description of amendment request: VEPCO proposes a change to the
Surry 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS) to update the cumulative
core burnup applicability limit Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) for
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Heatup and Cooldown Pressure/Temperature
(P/T) Limits, Low Temperature Overpressure Protection System (LTOPS)
Setpoint, and LTOPS Enabling Temperature (T-enable).
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 change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Surry Units 1 and 2 TS RCS
Heatup and Cooldown Limitations figures to reflect an increase in
the cumulative core burnup applicability limit to 48 EFPY. The
existing Surry TS RCS P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoint, and T-enable value
remain valid and conservative for cumulative core burnups up to 48
EFPY, thus increasing the cumulative core burnup applicability limit
for RCS P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoints and LTOPS T-enable to 48 EFPY
has no bearing on the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. These evaluations address the LTOPS design
basis mass addition accident (inadvertent charging pump start), heat
addition accident (Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) start with a
secondary-to-primary temperature difference of 50[deg]F) and
Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) events, the analysis of which is
covered by 10 CFR 50.61. The increased cumulative core burnup
applicability limit is accomplished through application of improved
analytical margins provided by Topical Report BAW-2308, Revision 2-
A, ``Initial RTNDT of Linde 80 Weld Materials,'' which
was approved by the NRC in March 2008 for use in plant-specific
applications. Dominion assessed the effect of the use of the
analytical margins and determined that the existing TS limits (RCS
P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoints and LTOPS T-enable) governing reactor
vessel integrity remain valid and conservative for cumulative core
burnups up to 48 EFPY. No changes to plant systems, structures or
components are proposed, and no new operating modes are established.
Furthermore, plant operating limits and setpoints are not being
changed. Therefore, there is no increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No changes to plant operating conditions, operating limits or
setpoints are being proposed and no changes to plant systems,
structures or components are being implemented. The existing Surry
TS RCS P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoint, and T-enable value remain valid
and conservative for cumulative core burnups up to 48 EFPY. Analyses
supporting the increased cumulative core burnup applicability limit
were performed in accordance with applicable regulatory guidance and
confirm that design functions (i.e., ensuring that combined pressure
and thermal stresses under normal operation heatup and cooldown
conditions and under design basis accident conditions at low
temperature) are maintained. Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of any accident or malfunction of a different
type previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The increased cumulative core burnup applicability limit is
accomplished through application of improved analytical margins
provided by Topical Report BAW-2308, Revision 2-A, which was
approved by the NRC in March 2008 for use in plant-specific
applications. Dominion [VEPCO] assessed the effect of the use of the
analytical margins and determined that the existing TS P/T Limits,
LTOPS Setpoints, and LTOPS T-enable governing reactor vessel
integrity remain valid and conservative for cumulative core burnups
up to 48 EFPY. No changes to plant systems, structures or components
are proposed, and no new operating modes are established.
Furthermore, plant operating limits and setpoints are not being
changed. Consequently, the existing TS P/T Limit curves, LTOPS
Setpoint, and LTOPS T-enable value provide acceptable margin to
vessel fracture under both normal operation and LTOPS design basis
(mass addition and heat addition) accident conditions for cumulative
core burnups up to 48 EFPY. Therefore, the proposed change does not
result in 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR
[[Page 54397]]
Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Duke Power Company, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Duke Power
Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Duke Power Company,
LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station,
Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments: September 30, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to allow testing containment spray nozzles for
nozzle blockage following activities which could result in nozzle
blockage, rather than a fixed periodic basis. Currently the testing for
nozzle blockage is performed every 10 years.
Date of issuance: August 24, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 261 and 256.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the licenses and technical specifications.
Amendment Nos.: 259 and 239.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and technical specifications.
Amendment Nos.: 369, 371, and 370.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the licenses and technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR
10828).
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 24, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois; Docket
Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and
2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: August 28, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated February 5 and June 2, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification 3.4.5, ``RCS Leakage Detection Instrumentation,'' at each
site to support implementation of an alternate method of verifying that
leakage in the drywell is within limits.
Date of issuance: August 16, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 235 and 228, 247 and 242.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and
DPR-30. The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 3, 2009 (74 FR
56886). The February 5 and June 2, 2010, supplements contained
clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial
proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: December 28, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated April 19, April 23, and June 17, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications to reflect an
increase in the rated thermal power from 1650 megawatts thermal (MWt)
to 1677 MWt (1.64 percent increase). The increase is based upon
increased feedwater flow measurement accuracy achieved by using high-
accuracy Caldon CheckPlusTM Leading Edge Flow Meter
ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation.
Date of issuance: August 17, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment Nos.: 197, 186.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (75 FR
26291).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-272, Salem Nuclear Generating Station,
Unit No. 1, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: September 21, 2009, as
supplemented on February 24, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 6.8.4.f, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' to allow a one-time extension of the Type A integrated leak
rate test (ILRT) interval from 10 to 15 years. Specifically, the
amendment requires that the next Type A ILRT be performed no later than
May 7, 2016.
Date of issuance: August 16, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 296.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-70: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (74
FR 59262).
The letter dated February 24, 2010, provided clarifying information
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope
of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendments: September 23, 2009, as
supplemented on December 21, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Delete TS 4.0.5, which pertains
to surveillance requirements for inservice inspection (ISI) and
inservice testing (IST) of American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components; (2) add a
new TS for the IST Program to Section 6.0, ``Administrative Controls,''
of the TSs; and (3) change TSs that currently reference TS 4.0.5 to
reference the IST Program or ISI Program, as applicable.
[[Page 54398]]
Date of issuance: August 20, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 297 and 279.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments
revised the TSs and the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (74
FR 68871).
The letter dated December 21, 2009, provided clarifying information
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope
of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 20, 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 plan