Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 16004-16012 [2011-6825]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16004-16012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6825]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0061]


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

[[Page 16005]]

(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 February 24, 2011, to March 9, 2011. The 
last biweekly notice was published on March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12763).

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 
O1 F21, 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding

[[Page 16006]]

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 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://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With 
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve 
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding 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

[[Page 16007]]

Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: July 21, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would relocate 
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3) Technical Specification (TS) 
3/4.7.14, ``Area Temperature Monitoring,'' and the associated Table 
3.7-6, ``Area Temperature Monitoring,'' to the MPS3 Technical 
Requirements Manual (TRM).
    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:

Criterion 1

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
change involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The provisions of TS 3/4.7.14 for area temperature monitoring of 
the TS specified or selected areas are neither part of an initial 
condition of a design basis accident or transient that either 
assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a 
fission product barrier, nor are they relied upon as a primary 
success path to mitigate such events. The provisions for area 
temperature monitoring are not related to events which are 
considered frequent or dominant contributors to plant risk. Area 
temperature monitoring is not considered a design feature or an 
operating restriction which is an initial condition of a design 
basis accident or transient analysis, nor does it provide a function 
or actuate any accident mitigation feature in order to mitigate the 
consequences of a design basis accident or transient.
    The environmental qualification and operability of the safety-
related equipment will not be adversely affected by the proposed 
changes to the area temperature monitoring program. The relocation 
of the TS to the TRM will not increase the probability that the area 
temperature design limits will be exceeded or result in a loss of 
qualified life of safety-related equipment. In addition, the 
consequences of exceeding the temperature limits will not 
significantly differ from the existing program since an evaluation 
of qualified life and operability will continue to be performed as 
part of the EQ [Environmental Qualification] program in accordance 
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 [Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, Section 50.49].
    Relocating TS 3/4.7.14 to the TRM will still provide adequate 
controls for area temperature monitoring in those areas designated 
in TS Table 3.7-6. Changes to the TRM require 10 CFR 50.59 safety 
evaluations and are reviewed and approved by the Facility Safety 
Review Committee prior to implementation.
    Based on the reasons presented above, operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed 
change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
No new accident will be created as a result of relocating TS 3/
4.7.14 to the TRM. This change is administrative in nature and does 
not change the level of programmatic and procedural control 
necessary to assure operation of the facility in a safe manner. 
Plant operation will not be affected by the proposed change and no 
new failure modes will be created.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

Criterion 3

    Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed 
change involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    There is no adverse impact on equipment design or operation and 
there are no changes being made to the TS required safety limits or 
safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety. The 
proposed change is administrative in nature and does not change the 
level of programmatic and procedural control necessary to ensure 
that environmentally qualified equipment will not be exposed to 
temperatures beyond that which they were originally qualified. The 
relocated requirements will continue to ensure that environmental 
qualification temperature limits of safety-related equipment will 
not be exceeded without an evaluation of equipment operability; 
therefore, the margin of safety is unchanged.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and has the 
following comments regarding the licensee's analysis of Criterion 1:
    While DNC accurately states that the temperature monitoring of the 
TS identified areas is not part of an initial condition of a design 
basis accident, some of the TS identified areas have temperatures 
limits that are initial conditions assumed in selected accident 
analyses. The proposed change relocates TS 3/4.7.14 to the TRM, thereby 
changing the administrative controls and regulatory process used to 
modify the requirements of this former TS.
    The proposed change dose not revise the station design, the 
response of the station to transients nor the manner in which the 
station is operated; therefore, these changes have no adverse affect on 
the safe operation of the station.
    Based on the NRC staff's review of the licensee's analysis and the 
additional analysis performed by the NRC staff, 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 
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, (NMPNS) Docket No. 50-220, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: November 2, 2010, as supplemented 
January 27, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.6.2, ``Protective 
Instrumentation,'' by modifying the operability requirements for the 
average power range monitoring (APRM) instrumentation system. The 
proposed amendment would eliminate the requirements that the APRM 
``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control rod withdrawal block 
functions be operable when the reactor mode switch is in the Refuel 
position, and would clarify the operability requirements for the APRM 
``Downscale'' control rod withdrawal block function when the reactor 
mode switch is in the Startup and Refuel positions.
    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

[[Page 16008]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The APRM system is not an initiator of or a precursor to any 
accident or transient. The APRM system monitors the neutron flux 
level in the power operating range from a few percent to greater 
than rated thermal power and provides automatic protective signals 
for postulated at-power reactivity insertion events. Thus, the 
proposed changes to the TS operability requirements for the APRM 
system will not significantly impact the probability of any 
previously evaluated accident.
    The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the 
proposed amendment. The TSs will continue to require operability of 
the APRM system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control 
rod withdrawal block functions when the reactor mode switch is in 
the Startup and Run positions to provide core protection for 
postulated reactivity insertion events occurring during power 
operating conditions. Thus, the consequences of previously evaluated 
at-power reactivity insertion events are not affected by the 
proposed amendment.
    The proposed elimination of the TS requirements that the APRM 
system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control rod 
withdrawal block functions be operable when the reactor mode switch 
is in the Refuel position does not increase the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. The NMP1 Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) does not provide analyses of reactivity 
insertion events occurring during the refueling operating condition. 
The possibility of inadvertent criticality due to a control rod 
withdrawal error during refueling is minimized by design features 
and procedural controls that are not affected by the proposed 
amendment. In addition, since reactor neutron flux levels during 
refueling are below the APRM indicating range, the APRM system does 
not provide any meaningful core monitoring or protection in the 
refueling operating condition. The source range and intermediate 
range neutron monitoring systems provide adequate neutron flux 
monitoring during refueling and automatically initiate protective 
actions (scram or control rod withdrawal block) when required during 
refueling.
    The change to the TS operability requirements for the APRM 
``Downscale'' control rod withdrawal block function is a 
clarification to more simply and clearly indicate that this function 
is not required when the reactor mode switch is in the Startup and 
Refuel positions. This change is consistent with plant design and 
does not change the actual TS operability requirements; thus, 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed 
change.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TS operability requirements for the 
APRM system do not introduce any new accident precursors and do not 
involve any physical plant alterations or changes in the methods 
governing normal plant operation that could initiate a new or 
different kind of accident. The proposed amendment does not alter 
the intended function of the APRM system and does not adversely 
affect the ability of the system to provide core protection for at-
power reactivity insertion events.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the 
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and 
primary containment) to perform their design functions during and 
following postulated accidents. The proposed amendment does not 
alter setpoints or limits established or assumed by the accident 
analyses. The proposed TS changes to eliminate the requirements that 
the APRM system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control 
rod withdrawal block functions be operable when the reactor mode 
switch is in the Refuel position have no impact on the performance 
of the fission product barriers since these APRM functions do not 
provide any meaningful core monitoring or protection in the 
Refueling operating condition. The TSs will continue to require 
operability of these APRM functions when the reactor mode switch is 
in the Startup and Run positions to provide core protection for 
postulated reactivity insertion events occurring during power 
operating conditions, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
    The change to the TS operability requirements for the APRM 
``Downscale'' control rod withdrawal block function is a 
clarification to more simply and clearly indicate that this function 
is not required when the reactor mode switch is in the Startup and 
Refuel positions. This change is consistent with plant design and 
does not change the actual TS operability requirements; thus, 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed 
change.
    Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed 
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel, 
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite 
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.

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 amendment request: February 4, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to make administrative changes 
which will: (1) in TS Section 5.2.1, allow certain requirements of 
onsite and offsite organizations to be documented in the Quality 
Assurance Topical Report (QATR); and (2) in TS Section 5.3, remove 
reference to specific education and experience requirements for 
operator license applicants.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    This license amendment request proposes to (1) revise Technical 
Specification 5.2.1(a) by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical 
Report (QATR) as an allowed location for documentation of 
requirements for lines of authority, responsibility, and 
communication; and (2) revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 by 
removal of an exception for operator license applicants' education 
and experience requirements, and the reference to a letter which 
references a specific industry guidance document. These are 
administrative changes.
    The proposed changes are administrative and therefore do not 
significantly affect any system that is a contributor to initiating 
events for previously evaluated accidents. Nor do the changes 
significantly affect any system that is used to mitigate any 
previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This license amendment request proposes to (1) revise Technical 
Specification 5.2.1(a) by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical 
Report (QATR) as an allowed location for documentation of 
requirements for lines of authority, responsibility, and 
communication; and (2) revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 by 
removal of an exception for operator license applicants' education 
and experience requirements, and the reference to a letter which 
references a

[[Page 16009]]

specific industry guidance document. These are administrative 
changes.
    The proposed administrative changes do not alter the design, 
function, or operation of any plant component, nor do they involve 
installation of any new or different equipment. Therefore, the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those 
previously evaluated has not been created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This license amendment request proposes to (1) revise Technical 
Specification 5.2.1(a) by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical 
Report (QATR) as an allowed location for documentation of 
requirements for lines of authority, responsibility, and 
communication; and (2) revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 by 
removal of an exception for operator license applicants' education 
and experience requirements, and the reference to a letter which 
references a specific industry guidance document. These are 
administrative changes.
    The proposed changes are administrative and therefore 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

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

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire.

    Date of application for amendments: January 27, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would modify Technical Specification (TS) 6.7.6.k, ``Steam Generator,'' 
and TS 6.8.1.7, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to allow 
implementation of alternate repair criteria.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: March 
1, 2011 (FR 76 11291).
    Expiration date of individual notice: March 31, 2011 (public 
comments) and May 2, 2011 (hearing requests).

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of 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 20850-2738. 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. 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

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

    Date of application for amendment: March 5, 2010, as supplemented 
November 1, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specifications (TS) Section 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature 
Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' to allow the performance of 
maintenance activities for an inoperable Containment Pressure--High 
High channel. TS 3.3.6, ``Containment Ventilation Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' was revised to correct an error related to table 
references.
    Date of issuance: March 7, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No. 225.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. Amendment revised 
the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR 
30443). The supplement dated June 8 and August 26, 2004, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 
Vermont

    Date of amendment request: April 13, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification to institute a requirement to perform a Logic 
System Functional Test of the Control Rod Block actuation 
instrumentation trip functions once every Operating Cycle.
    Date of Issuance: February 23, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 246.

[[Page 16010]]

    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR 
37474).
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 22, 2010, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 12, November 23, and December 21, 2010, and 
January 24, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: Entergy Operations, Inc. (the 
licensee), was planning to replace the two Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) steam generators (SGs) during the 
forthcoming spring 2011 refueling outage. Based on design changes in 
the replacement SGs, piping systems will require rerouting in the SG 
cavity area. The rerouting of SG blowdown line cannot be effectively 
performed without removing the existing dynamic protection associated 
with the pressurizer surge line. The amendment approved revision of the 
Waterford 3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to allow the removal of 
pipe break dynamic protection associated with the pressurizer surge 
line using leak-before-break methodologies. The licensee will include 
the revised information in the FSAR in the next periodic update in 
accordance with paragraph 50.71(e) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. The licensee deferred its planned SG replacement until the 
fall 2012 refueling outage.
    Date of issuance: February 28, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 232.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and the Final Safety Analyses Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 
20632). The supplemental letters dated August 12, November 23, and 
December 21, 2010, and January 24, 2011, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: February 15, 2010, as 
supplemented by letter dated August 19, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates selected 
Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the Braidwood Station, Units 
1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled 
program. This change is based on the NRC-approved Industry Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-425, ``Relocate 
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed Technical 
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3, (ADAMS 
Accession Package No. ML090850642).
    Date of issuance: February 24, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 165/165.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 
20635).
    The August 19, 2010, supplement 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 February 24, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: February 15, 2010, as 
supplemented by letter dated August 19, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates selected 
Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the Byron Station, Unit Nos. 
1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled 
program. This change is based on the NRC-approved Industry Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-425, ``Relocate 
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed Technical 
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3, (ADAMS 
Accession Package No. ML090850642).
    Date of issuance: February 24, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 171/171.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 
20634). The August 19, 2010, supplement 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 February 24, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: February 16, 2010, as supplanted by 
letter dated June 22, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify the DNPS Units 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs) by 
relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled 
program with the adoption of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-
425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk 
Informed Technical Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' 
Revision 3. Additionally, the change would add a new program, the 
``Surveillance Frequency Control Program [SFCP],'' to TS Section 5, 
``Administrative Controls.''
    Date of issuance: February 25, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 237/230.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 
20636).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 16011]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: February 15, 2010, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 26, June 23, and August 3, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocate selected 
Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the LaSalle County Station 
Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled 
program. This change is based on the NRC-approved Industry Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-425, ``Relocate 
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed Technical 
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3, (ADAMS 
Accession Package No. ML090850642).
    Date of issuance: February 24, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 200/187.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 
20636).
    The April 26, June 23, and August 3, 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 February 24, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412, 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: February 26, 2010, as 
supplemented November 10, 2010 and January 26, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the scope of 
the steam generator tubesheet inspections and subsequent repair using 
the F* inspection methodology.
    Date of issuance: February 24, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment No: 172.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: The amendment revised the 
License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (76 FR 
1648). The supplements dated November 10, 2010 and January 27, 2011, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of application for amendments: February 16, 2010, as 
supplemented September 21, and December 2, 2010, and February 2, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by deleting TS 3/4.9.7, ``Crane Travel--
Spent Fuel Storage Areas,'' retaining the operational limits associated 
with TS 3/4.9.7 in licensee controlled documents, and deleting TS 3/
4.9.12, ``Handling of Spent Fuel Cask.'' Part of the basis for the 
change is the proposed installation of a new single-failure-proof spent 
fuel cask handling crane meeting the requirements of NUREG-0554, 
``Single-Failure-Proof Cranes for Nuclear Power Plants,'' May 1979.
    Date of issuance: February 25, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 243 (Unit 3) and 239 (Unit 4).
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 18, 2010 (75 FR 
27831).
    The supplements dated September 21, 2010, December 2, 2010, and 
February 2, 2011, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.9, Diesel 
Generator (DG) Load Test, in TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] 
Sources--Operating,'' to correct a non-conservative power factor value. 
In addition, this amendment added a new note to SR 3.8.1.9 consistent 
with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-
276-A, Revision 2, ``Revise DG full load rejection test.'' This note 
allows the DG Load Test to be performed at the specified power factor 
with clarifications addressing situations when the power factor cannot 
be achieved.
    Date of issuance: February 28, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 237.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 
20639).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: August 12, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the Duane 
Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Technical Specification (TS) requirements 
for unavailable barriers in accordance with the adoption of Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-427.
    Date of issuance: February 28, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 277.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 14, 2010 (75 
FR 77914).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2011.

[[Page 16012]]

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey.
    Date of application for amendment: March 19, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated July 28, 2010, and January 10, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance 
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The changes are based on 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change 
TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 
Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.''
    Date of issuance: February 25, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment No.: 187.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the 
TSs and the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR 
33842).
    The letters dated July 28, 2010, and January 10, 2011, provided 
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination or expand the 
application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: May 28, 2010, as supplemented 
December 1, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 4.2.2 ``Control Rod Assemblies,'' to include silver-
indium-cadmium material in addition to the boron carbide control rod 
material.
    Date of issuance: February 25, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than 90 days from date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 86.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (75 FR 
44026). TVA's supplement dated December 1, 2010, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed proposed and did not change the 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station (WCGS), Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: April 13, 2010, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 1, 2010, and February 17, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the approved 
fire protection program, as described in the response to Question 
Q280.5 of the WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report, by removing the 
high/low pressure interface designation of the pressurizer power-
operated relief valves and their associated block valves. The amendment 
also revised license condition 2.C.(5)(a) to include the change 
approved by this amendment request.
    Date of issuance: March 9, 2011.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 193.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42: The amendment 
revised the operating license and approved fire protection program, as 
described in the WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR 
37477). The supplemental letter dated February 17, 2011, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register. The supplemental 
letter dated June 1, 2010, was included in the original notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 2011.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-6825 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P