Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 48908-48919 [2011-19775]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48908-48919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19775]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0175]


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

Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act 
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue 
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued from July 14, 2011, to July 27, 2011. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 26, 2011 (76 FR 44614).

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0175 in the subject line 
of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form 
will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web 
site https://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be 
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC 
cautions you against including any information in your submission that 
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.

[[Page 48909]]

    The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments 
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those 
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any 
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not 
include any information in their comments that they do not want 
publicly disclosed.
    You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0175. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-
492-3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Chief, Rules, Announcements, and 
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    You can access publicly available documents related to this notice 
using the following methods:
     NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine 
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's 
PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC 
are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at  
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public 
can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of the 
NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail 
to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and 
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at  https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2011-0175.

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.
    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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC 
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the 
NRC Web site at 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

[[Page 48910]]

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, then 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 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 identification (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 the 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 the 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 the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
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 1-866-672-7640. 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

[[Page 48911]]

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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: April 6, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the actions to be taken when the containment atmosphere gaseous 
radioactivity monitoring system and the primary containment pressure 
and temperature monitoring system are the only operable reactor coolant 
leakage detection monitoring systems. The modified actions require 
additional, more frequent monitoring of other indications of Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) leakage and provide appropriate time to restore 
another monitoring system to operable status. This change is consistent 
with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved safety 
evaluation on Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-
514-A, Revision 3, ``Revise BWR [Boiling Water Reactor] Operability 
Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation,'' dated 
November 24, 2010.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC edits in brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The proposed changes [ ] modify the time allowed for the plant 
to operate when the only operable RCS leakage detection 
instrumentation monitors are the containment atmosphere gaseous 
radioactivity monitoring system and the primary containment pressure 
and temperature monitoring system. The monitoring of RCS leakage is 
not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The monitoring 
of RCS leakage is not a direct method used to mitigate the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated. [The RCS leakage 
detection instruments are used to detect a degradation of the RCS 
pressure boundary and are used to determine the need to initiate 
mitigative actions.] Therefore, the proposed amendment does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes also renumber [certain] current TS Actions 
to accommodate the new TS Action. This change is administrative in 
nature and does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes [ ] modify the time allowed for the plant 
to operate when the only operable RCS leakage detection 
instrumentation monitor monitors are the containment atmosphere 
gaseous radioactivity monitoring system and the primary containment 
pressure and temperature monitoring system. The proposed changes do 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different 
type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods 
governing normal plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed changes also renumber [certain] 
current TS Actions to accommodate the new TS Action. This change is 
administrative in nature and does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes [ ] increase the time allowed for the 
drywell floor drain sump flow monitoring system and the drywell unit 
coolers condensate flow rate monitoring system to be inoperable 
concurrently from 12 hours to 7 days. Increasing the amount of time 
the plant is allowed to operate with these two leakage detection 
monitors inoperable does not significantly decrease the margin of 
safety due to the addition of compensatory actions to analyze grab 
samples of the primary containment atmosphere once per 12 hours and 
monitor RCS leakage by administrative means once per 12 hours. The 
overall likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be detected 
before it potentially results in gross failure is maintained with 
the addition of the actions. Therefore, the proposed amendment does 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed changes also renumber [certain] current TS Actions 
to accommodate the new TS Action. This change is administrative in 
nature and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: June 2, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
the Technical Specifications for each unit by changing the method of 
calculating core reactivity for the purpose of performing the 
reactivity anomaly surveillance at Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 
and 2. The proposed change would allow performance of the surveillance 
based on a comparison of predicted to actual (or monitored) core 
reactivity. The reactivity anomaly verification is currently determined 
by a comparison of predicted versus actual control rod density.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC edits in brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 48912]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The proposed Technical Specifications changes do not affect any 
plant systems, structures, or components designed for the prevention 
or mitigation of previously evaluated accidents. The amendment would 
only change how the reactivity anomaly surveillance is performed. 
Verifying that the core reactivity is consistent with predicted 
values ensures that accident and transient safety analyses remain 
valid. This amendment changes the Technical Specification 
requirements such that, rather than performing the surveillance by 
comparing predicted to actual control rod density, the surveillance 
is performed by a direct comparison of [effective multiplication 
factor] keff. Present day on-line core monitoring 
systems, such as the one in use at Limerick Generating Station 
(LGS), Units 1 and 2 are capable of performing the direct 
measurement of reactivity.
    Therefore, since the reactivity anomaly surveillance will 
continue to be performed by a viable method, the proposed amendment 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequence of a previously evaluated accident.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This Technical Specifications amendment request does not involve 
any changes to the operation [ ] or maintenance of any safety-
related, or otherwise important to safety systems. All systems 
important to safety will continue to be operated and maintained 
within their design bases. The proposed changes to the reactivity 
anomaly Technical Specifications will only provide a new, more 
efficient method of detecting an unexpected change in core 
reactivity.
    Since all systems continue to be operated within their design 
bases, no new failure modes are introduced and the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident is not created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This proposed Technical Specifications amendment proposes to 
change the method for performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance 
from a comparison of predicted to actual control rod density to a 
comparison of predicted to actual keff. The direct 
comparison of keff provides a technically superior method 
of calculating any differences in the expected core reactivity. The 
reactivity anomaly surveillance will continue to be performed at the 
same frequency as is currently required by the Technical 
Specifications, only the method of performing the surveillance will 
be changed. Consequently, core reactivity assumptions made in safety 
analyses will continue to be adequately verified.
    Therefore, 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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate 
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: June 14, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
the Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.3.1, ``LEAKAGE DETECTION 
SYSTEMS,'' to support the addition of an alternative method of 
verifying that unidentified leakage in the drywell is within limits. 
The proposed alternate method uses the installed drywell equipment 
drain sump (DWEDS) monitoring system, with the drywell floor drain sump 
(DWFDS) overflowing to the DWEDS, to verify that Reactor Coolant System 
leakage in the drywell is within limits. This configuration would only 
be used when the DWFDS monitoring system is unavailable.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any 
plant structure, system, or component. As a result, no new failure 
modes of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection systems 
are being introduced. Additionally, the RCS leakage detection 
systems have no impact on any initiating event frequency.
    The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent 
on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of 
the fuel during the analyzed accident, the availability and 
successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in 
response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these 
actions are initiated. The RCS leakage detection systems do not 
perform an accident mitigating function. Emergency Core Cooling 
System, Reactor Protection System, and primary and secondary 
containment isolation actuations are not affected by the proposed 
change. The proposed change has no impact on any setpoints or 
functions related to these actuations. There are no changes in the 
types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents 
released offsite.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows use of the drywell equipment drain 
system as an alternative method of quantifying unidentified leakage 
in the drywell. The drywell equipment drain system will continue to 
be used for leakage collection and quantification. There is no 
alteration to the parameters within which the plant is normally 
operated or in the setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative 
actions. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The current TS require a periodic measurement of RCS leakage. 
The proposed change maintains the existing level of safety by 
allowing use of the drywell equipment drain sump system to quantify 
unidentified leakage in the drywell. No changes are being made to 
any of the RCS leakage limits specified in the TS. The impact of the 
change is that measured unidentified and identified leakage within 
the drywell will be quantified as equivalent values since the 
drywell equipment drain sump monitoring system will also be used to 
measure leakage into the drywell floor drain sump. In addition, the 
alternative method conservatively assumes that all leakage in the 
drywell is unidentified leakage.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

[[Page 48913]]

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

    Date of amendment request: April 21, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
operability requirements for the leakage detection systems, eliminate 
redundant Technical Specification (TS) requirements, and revise the TS 
actions to include conditions and required actions for inoperable 
leakage detection systems similar to those in NUREG 1431, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants.'' The proposed amendment 
would also incorporate the requirements of TSTF-513, Revision 3, 
``Revise [Pressurized Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and 
Actions for [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Instrumentation.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, which is presented below, 
with NRC edits shown in square brackets:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change does not impact the physical function of 
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in 
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed change 
neither adversely affects accident initiators or precursors, nor 
alters design assumptions. The proposed change does not alter or 
prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their design 
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within 
assumed acceptance limits. The [reactor coolant system (RCS)] 
leakage detection instruments are not used in [the] mitigation of 
any accidents. [The RCS leakage detection instruments are used to 
detect a degradation of the RCS pressure boundary and are used to 
determine the need to initiate mitigative actions].
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change will not impact the accident analysis. The 
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a significant 
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions [to 
mitigate an accident]. The proposed change will not introduce 
failure modes that could result in a new accident. The change does 
not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change does not 
involve a significant change in the method of plant operation, and 
no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. 
Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used 
to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system 
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition.
    Therefore, these 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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves NSHC.
    Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company, 
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.

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 NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at 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.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, 2, 
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of application for amendment: July 22, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated September 29 and November 30, 2010, and January 20, 
March 31, and June 29, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments approved the cyber 
security plan and associated implementation schedule, and revise 
Paragraph 2.E of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and 
NPF-74, respectively, to provide a license condition to require the 
licensee to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of 
the NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan. The proposed change is consistent 
with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08-09, Revision 6, ``Cyber Security 
Plan for Nuclear Power Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: July 26, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP), 
including the key intermediate milestone dates and the full 
implementation date, shall be in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted by the licensee on March 31, 2011, and approved by 
the NRC staff with this license amendment.

[[Page 48914]]

All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP implementation schedule 
will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--185; Unit 2--185; Unit 3--185.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: 
The amendment revised the Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 9, 2010 (75 FR 
68833). The supplemental letters dated September 29 and November 30, 
2010, and January 20, March 31, and June 29, 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 July 26, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application of amendments: October 19, 2009, as 
supplemented November 15, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications to allow the use of gadolinia as an integral 
burnable absorber in the uranium oxide fuel matrix.
    Date of Issuance: July 21, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 374, 376, and 375.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 16, 2010 (75 FR 
12576).
    The supplement dated November 15, 2010, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 21, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: July 22, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated September 27 and November 30, 2010, and March 31, 
2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the cyber 
security plan and associated implementation schedule, and revised 
Paragraph 2.E of Facility Operating License No. NPF-21 to provide a 
license condition to require the licensee to fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security 
Plan. The proposed change is consistent with Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) 08-09, Revision 6, ``Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power 
Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP), 
including the key intermediate milestone dates and the full 
implementation date, shall be in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted by the licensee on March 31, 2011, and approved by 
the NRC staff with this license amendment. All subsequent changes to 
the NRC-approved CSP implementation schedule will require prior NRC 
approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90.
    Amendment No.: 222.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (75 FR 
51492). The supplemental letters dated September 27 and November 30, 
2010, and March 31, 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 July 27, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of application for amendment: July 20, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' 
by relocating the current stored diesel fuel oil and lube oil numerical 
volume requirements from TS to the TS Bases so that they may be 
modified under licensee control. The TS are modified so that the stored 
diesel fuel oil and lube oil inventory will require that a 7-day supply 
be available for either diesel generator. Condition A and Condition B 
in the Action table are revised and Surveillance Requirements (SR) 
3.8.3.1 and 3.8.3.2 are revised to reflect the above change. The 
amendment also revises TS 3.8.3 by reducing the Completion Time for 
Condition C.
    Date of issuance: July 26, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 242.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 14, 2010 (75 
FR 77912).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of application for amendment: July 15, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated February 15, and April 4, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment to the 
Facility Operating License (FOL) includes: (1) the proposed Pilgrim 
Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Cyber Security Plan, (2) an implementation 
schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to the existing FOL 
Physical Protection license condition for PNPS requiring Entergy to 
fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the 
Commission-approved PNPS Cyber Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 
73.54, ``Protection of digital computer and communication systems and 
networks.'' A Federal Register notice dated March 27, 2009, issued the 
final rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The regulations in 10 CFR 
73.54, establish the requirements for a Cyber Security Program. This 
regulation specifically requires each licensee currently licensed to 
operate a nuclear power plant under part 50 of this chapter to submit a 
cyber security plan that satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Each 
submittal must include a proposed implementation schedule and 
implementation of the licensee's Cyber Security Program must be 
consistent with the approved schedule. The

[[Page 48915]]

background for this application is addressed by the NRC Notice of 
Availability, Federal Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR part 73, Power 
Reactor Security Requirements, published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 
13926).
    Date of issuance: July 22, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the CSP, including the key 
intermediate milestone dates and the full implementation date, shall be 
in accordance with the implementation schedule submitted by the 
licensee on July 15, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated February 15 
and April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff with this license 
amendment. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP 
implementation schedule will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 
CFR 50.90.
    Amendment No.: 236.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the 
License
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (75 FR 
51493).
    The supplements dated February 15, and April 4, 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 July 22, 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 application for amendment: July 16, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated February 15 and April 4, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment to the Renewed 
Facility Operating License (FOL) includes: (1) the Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Station (VY) Cyber Security Plan (CSP), (2) an 
implementation schedule, and (3) a proposed sentence to be added to the 
existing FOL Physical Protection license condition for VY requiring 
Entergy to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the 
Commission-approved VY CSP as required by Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 73.54 ``Protection of digital computer and 
communication systems and networks.'' A Federal Register notice dated 
March 27, 2009, issued the final rule that amended 10 CFR part 73. The 
regulations in 10 CFR 73.54 establish the requirements for a CSP. This 
regulation specifically requires each licensee currently licensed to 
operate a nuclear power plant under part 50 of this chapter to submit a 
CSP that satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Each submittal must 
include a proposed implementation schedule and implementation of the 
licensee's CSP must be consistent with the approved schedule. The 
background for this application is addressed by the NRC Notice of 
Availability, Federal Register Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR part 73, Power 
Reactor Security Requirements, published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 
13926).
    Date of Issuance: July 20, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the CSP, including the key 
intermediate milestone dates and the full implementation date, shall be 
in accordance with the implementation schedule submitted by the 
licensee on July 16, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated February 15 
and April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff with this license 
amendment. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP 
implementation schedule will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 
CFR 50.90.
    Amendment No.: 247.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment 
revised the License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (75 FR 
51494).
    The supplements dated February 15 and April 4, 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 this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: July 9, 2010, as supplemented by letters 
dated September 23 and November 30, 2010, and February 15 and April 1, 
2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 cyber security plan and associated 
implementation schedule, and revised Paragraph 2.c.(4) of Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Unit 1 and Paragraph 2.D of 
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6 for Unit 2 to provide a 
license condition to require the licensee to fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security 
Plan. The change is consistent with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08-
09, Revision 6, ``Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP), 
including the key intermediate milestone dates and the full 
implementation date, shall be in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted by the licensee on April 1, 2011, and approved by 
the NRC staff with this license amendment. All subsequent changes to 
the NRC-approved CSP implementation schedule will require prior NRC 
approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--244; Unit 2--294.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6: Amendment 
revised the operating licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 
62597). The supplemental letters dated September 23 and November 30, 
2010, and February 15 and April 1, 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 July 27, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of application for amendment: July 22, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated September 23 and November 30, 2010, and February 15 
and April 4, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the cyber 
security plan and associated implementation

[[Page 48916]]

schedule, and revised Paragraph 2.E of Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-29 to provide a license condition to require the licensee to fully 
implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved 
Cyber Security Plan. The proposed change is generally consistent with 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08-09, Revision 6, ``Cyber Security Plan 
for Nuclear Power Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP), 
including the key intermediate milestone dates and the full 
implementation date, shall be in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted by the licensee on April 4, 2011, and approved by 
the NRC staff with this license amendment. All subsequent changes to 
the NRC-approved CSP implementation schedule will require prior NRC 
approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90.
    Amendment No: 186.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revises the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (75 FR 
51494). The supplemental letters dated September 23 and November 30, 
2010, and February 15 and April 4, 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 July 27, 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: July 15, 2010, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 27 and November 30, 2010, and February 15 and 
April 4, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the cyber 
security plan and associated implementation schedule, and revised 
Paragraph 2.E of Facility Operating License No. NPF-38 to provide a 
license condition to require the licensee to fully implement and 
maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber Security 
Plan. The proposed change is consistent with Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) 08-09, Revision 6, ``Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power 
Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: July 20, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP), 
including the key intermediate milestone dates and the full 
implementation date, shall be in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted by the licensee on April 4, 2011, and approved by 
the NRC staff with this license amendment. All subsequent changes to 
the NRC-approved CSP implementation schedule will require prior NRC 
approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90.
    Amendment No.: 234.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 
62598). The supplemental letters dated September 27 and November 30, 
2010, and February 15 and April 4, 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 July 20, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: January 6, 2010, as 
supplemented by letters dated August 20, October 14, and December 2, 
2010, and February 7, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments changes paragraph 
2.B.(5) of Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NFP-11 and NPF-18 for 
LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2 which enable LSCS to 
possess and store byproduct material from Braidwood Station, Units 1 
and 2, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 
in the LSCS Interim Radwaste Storage Facility.
    Date of issuance: July 21, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 202/189.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments 
revised paragraph 2.B.(5) of FOL Nos. NFP-11 and NPF-18.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 21, 2010 (75 FR 
42465). The August 20, October 14, and December 2, 2010, and February 
7, 2011 supplements, contained clarifying information and did not 
change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 July 21, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, Somervell County, 
Texas

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2010, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 27 and November 30, 2010, and March 31, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved the cyber 
security plan and associated implementation schedule, and revised 
Paragraph 2.H of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89 for 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, to 
provide a license condition to require the licensee to fully implement 
and maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber 
Security Plan. The proposed change is consistent with Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 08-09, Revision 6, ``Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear 
Power Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: July 26, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP), 
including the key intermediate milestone dates and the full 
implementation date, shall be in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted by the licensee on March 31, 2011, and approved by 
the NRC staff with this license amendment. All subsequent changes to 
the NRC-approved CSP implementation schedule will require prior NRC 
approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--155; Unit 2--155.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 
62601). The supplemental letters dated September 27 and November 30, 
2010, and March 31, 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.

[[Page 48917]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 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: July 20, 2010, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 27 and November 30, 2010, and March 30, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the cyber 
security plan and associated implementation schedule, and revised 
Paragraph 2.C.(3) of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46 to 
provide a license condition to require the licensee to fully implement 
and maintain in effect all provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber 
Security Plan. The proposed change is consistent with Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 08-09, Revision 6, ``Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear 
Power Reactors.''
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance. The implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP), 
including the key intermediate milestone dates and the full 
implementation date, shall be in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted by the licensee on March 30, 2011, and approved by 
the NRC staff with this license amendment. All subsequent changes to 
the NRC-approved CSP implementation schedule will require prior NRC 
approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90.
    Amendment No.: 238.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 
62602). The supplemental letters dated September 27 and November 30, 
2010, and March 30, 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 July 27, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin

    Date of application for amendments: July 8, 2010, as supplemented 
by letters dated September