Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 67485-67495 [2011-28162]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67485-67495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28162]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0252]


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 October 6, 2011 to October 19, 2011. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 18, 2011 (76 FR 64388).
    Addresses: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0252 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.
    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-
2011-0252. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher (301) 
492-3668; email 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, 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 
email 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-2011-0252.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a

[[Page 67486]]

margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each 
amendment request is shown below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules, 
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the 
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. 
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at (301) 492-3446. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a 
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be 
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for 
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) 
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at 
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
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 contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by email 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

[[Page 67487]]

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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email 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 Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received 
at the NRC are available online 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (DEK), Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power 
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: May 9, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the KPS current licensing basis (CLB) regarding the manner in 
which service water is supplied to the component cooling heat 
exchangers by the main return valves and the bypass flow control 
valves.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would modify the KPS current licensing 
basis by changing the automatic function of providing service water 
flow to the component cooling heat exchangers, from being provided 
by control

[[Page 67488]]

of the main service water return valves to being provided by the 
service water bypass flow control valves. The probability of 
occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not affected, since 
the affected equipment is used to mitigate certain design basis 
accidents (DBA's) and does not contribute to the initiation of any 
previously evaluated accidents.
    As a result of a physical plant modification, manual action is 
now required to open the service water main return valves to the 
component cooling heat exchangers for initiation of the sump 
recirculation phase of LOCA mitigation. These valves were previously 
designed to open upon receipt of an SI signal. However, automatic 
action to supply service water during the immediate injection phase 
of a postulated accident continues to be in place following this 
modification without any adverse functional impact. This automatic 
action is performed by the bypass flow control valves (i.e., the 
temperature control valves) in the same manner as previously 
performed by the main return valves. The bypass flow control valves 
automatically supply required cooling water flow, consistent with 
existing analyses for the injection phase of the postulated 
accident. The service water main return valves are only needed to be 
opened during the subsequent recirculation phase of safety injection 
(SI) for LOCA mitigation. Transition to the recirculation phase of 
SI cooling previously was, and currently remains, achieved by a 
series of manual actions. Adding an additional step to the procedure 
controlling this transition does not significantly impact the 
probability of correctly performing this activity. Since the 
required automatic function is maintained, and the additional manual 
action required to perform injection to recirculation phase 
realignment is simple, this change does not significantly increase 
the probability of a malfunction of a component important to safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment changes the manner in which service water 
is supplied to the component cooling heat exchangers immediately 
after a DBA involving an SI signal. Previously, service water was 
automatically supplied to the component cooling heat exchangers 
through the service water main return valves. This design has been 
changed, and currently service water is supplied to the component 
cooling heat exchangers through the service water bypass flow 
control valves. No physical changes are being made to any other 
portion of the plant, so no new accident causal mechanisms are being 
introduced. The proposed change does not result in any new 
mechanisms that could initiate damage to the reactor or its 
principal safety barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system, or primary containment).
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not affect the inputs or assumptions 
of any of the design basis analyses that demonstrate the integrity 
of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, or containment during 
accident conditions. The automatic function of supplying required 
cooling water to the component cooling heat exchangers at the onset 
of a postulated accident is not being changed. Removal of the 
automatic opening signal from the service water main return valves 
will require that these valves be manually opened during the latter 
stages of the postulated accident when aligning for containment sump 
recirculation cooling. However, aligning for containment sump 
recirculation cooling had previously credited a series of manual 
actions within the analyses for the design basis accident. The added 
step of opening the service water main return valves does not 
significantly impact the ability of operators to perform this 
alignment. Furthermore, by reducing the initial excess supply of 
cooling water (via lower capacity valves) to the component cooling 
system heat exchangers, additional cooling water is available to the 
containment fan coil units for mitigating the postulated accident 
and the margin to two-phase flow in the affected cooling system is 
improved. Thus, DEK considers that the proposed changes will 
increase overall effectiveness of the engineered safety features' 
response to postulated accidents involving initiation of an SI 
signal.
    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 5, 2011, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 6, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.3, ``Safety/Relief Valves 
(SRVs) and Safety Valves (SVs).'' The proposed amendment would reduce 
the number of SRVs required to be OPERABLE for over-pressure protection 
(OPP) from eight to seven.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The number of SRVs installed in the plant and their 
configuration are not being changed by this amendment. Since there 
are no changes to any physical configuration of the SRVs nor to 
their lift setpoints, no new accident initiators are introduced. The 
plant will continue to be operated in the same manner as before and 
will respond to accidents in the same manner as before. Only the 
number of SRVs required to be operable is being changed. Therefore, 
the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The change does, in fact, reduce the number of SRVs originally 
assumed to be operable in design basis accident mitigation 
calculations. The General Electric Hitachi (GEH) analysis has shown 
that reducing the number of SRVs required to be operable from eight 
to six continues to preserve substantial margin to OPP and ATWS 
[anticipated transient without scram] limits. With one SRV 
inoperable, i.e. reducing the number of required operable SRVs from 
eight to seven, the reduction in margin is well within the safety 
design bases of the nuclear pressure relief system. Therefore, the 
functioning of fewer SRVs continues to accomplish the required 
pressure relief for the analyzed transients and events.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not change the design function or 
operation of the SRVs. The change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident since there is no credible new 
failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident initiator not considered 
in the design and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The safety margins affected by this proposed change are the OPP 
pressure relief margin to Reactor Coolant System Pressure Boundary 
design pressure and the ATWS pressure relief margin to the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers Level `C' Service Limit. The GEH 
analysis performed to support this change demonstrates the margin 
between maximum pressure rise,

[[Page 67489]]

upon SRV actuation, and the OPP limit continues to be substantial. 
For ATWS with one SRV inoperable, available remaining margin to the 
Level C Service limit is still sufficient to ensure maximum pressure 
and required steam flows are within analysis success criteria. The 
analysis success criteria are, in turn, below the accident and 
transient limits. The change does not exceed a design basis or 
safety limit, and it does not significantly reduce the margin of 
safety. Thus, the margin reduction for one SRV inoperable is not 
significant.
    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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise several Technical Specification (TS) pages to correct formatting 
errors and typographical errors, including pages within TS 3.1.3, 
``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' TS 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times,'' TS 
3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation,'' TS 
3.3.5.1, ``Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' TS 
3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.2, 
``Secondary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.1, ``Loss 
of Power (LOP) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.2, ``Reactor Protection 
System (RPS) Electric Power Monitoring,'' TS 3.5.1, ``ECCS--
Operating,'' TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS--Shutdown,'' TS 3.6.1.1, ``Primary 
Containment,'' TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,'' TS 
3.7.4, ``Control Room Emergency Filter (CREF) System,'' TS 3.8.1, ``AC 
[Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' TS 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel 
Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' TS 5.2, ``Organization,'' TS 5.5, 
``Programs and Manuals,'' and TS 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals''). In 
addition, the amendment would revise TS 5.5.6, ``Inservice Testing 
Program,'' to remove an expired one-time exception of the 5-year 
frequency requirement for setpoint testing of safety valve MSRV-70ARV.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes correct formatting and typographical errors 
and [remove] an expired one-time exception. Administrative and 
editorial changes such as these are not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an 
accident with the incorporation of these administrative and 
editorial changes are not different than the consequences of the 
same accident without these changes. As a result, the consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by these 
changes.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not modify the plant design, nor do the 
proposed changes alter the operation of the plant or equipment 
involved in either routine plant operation or in the mitigation of 
the design basis accidents. The proposed changes are editorial or 
administrative only.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes consist of administrative and editorial 
changes to correct formatting and typographical errors and to remove 
an expired one-time exception. The changes do not alter the manner 
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed 
changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration 
outside of the design basis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 1, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation 3.7.9 
``Ultimate Heat Sink.'' The proposed changes involve changing the 
criteria for Nuclear Service Cooling Water (NSCW) tower three and four 
fan operation. These proposed changes include an increase in the wet 
bulb temperature limit for three fan operation and addition of a 
Condition that allows a 7-day Completion Time for a specific situation.
    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 changes do not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in 
the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The Ultimate Heat Sink is 
not an initiator to any analyzed accident sequence. Operation in 
accordance with the proposed technical specification will continue 
to ensure that the Ultimate Heat Sink remains capable of performing 
its safety function and that all analyzed accidents will continue to 
be mitigated as previously analyzed. The proposed technical 
specification changes will not initiate any accident; therefore, the 
probability or consequences of an accident have not been increased.
    Therefore, these changes do 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 do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident than any accident already evaluated in 
the FSAR. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms or limiting 
single failures are introduced as result of the proposed

[[Page 67490]]

changes. The changes have no adverse effects on any safety-related 
system.
    Therefore, all accident analyses criteria continue to be met and 
these changes do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Based on the operability of the required NSCW cooling tower 
fans, the accident analysis assumptions continue to be met with 
enactment of the proposed changes. The system's design and operation 
are not affected by the proposed changes. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not altered by the proposed changes nor is 
there a change to any Safety Analysis Limit. Finally, the proposed 
compensatory measures will provide further assurance that no 
significant reduction in safety margin will occur. The proposed 
changes provide reasonable assurance that the NSCW system will 
continue to perform its intended safety functions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, 
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30308-2216.
    NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: August 23, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the application of Risk-Managed Technical Specifications (RMTS) 
to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and 
Cleanup Filtration System.'' The proposed change would correct a 
potential misapplication of the Configuration Risk Management Program 
(CRMP) that is currently allowed by the TSs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management 
Program (CRMP) to be applied to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, 
``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the 
condition where one train of the Control Room Makeup and Cleanup 
Filtration System is inoperable only due to the unavailability of 
cooling. The change deletes application of the CRMP where more than 
one train of CRHVAC is inoperable. Some action steps are re-numbered 
as an administrative change.
    The change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change 
does not involve a change to the plant or its modes of operation. In 
addition, the risk-informed configuration management program will be 
applied to effectively manage the availability of required 
structures, systems, and components to assure there is no 
significant increase in the probability of an accident.
    This proposed change does not increase the consequences of an 
accident because the design-basis mitigation function of the 
affected systems is not changed and the risk-informed configuration 
management program will be applied to effectively manage the 
availability of structures, systems, and components required to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident.
    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 the Configuration Risk Management 
Program (CRMP) to be applied to TS 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and 
Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the condition where one train of 
the Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration System is inoperable 
only due to the unavailability of cooling. The change deletes 
application of the CRMP where more than one train of CRHVAC is 
inoperable. Some action steps are renumbered as an administrative 
change.
    The proposed change will not alter the plant configuration (no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any 
unusual operator actions. The proposed change will not alter the way 
any structure, system, or component functions, and will not 
significantly alter the manner in which the plant is operated. The 
response of the plant and the operators following an accident will 
not be different. In addition, the proposed change does not 
introduce any new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction to a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management 
Program (CRMP) to be applied to TS 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and 
Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the condition where one train of 
the Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration System is inoperable 
only due to the unavailability of cooling. The change deletes 
application of the CRMP where more than one train of CRHVAC is 
inoperable. Some action steps are renumbered as an administrative 
change.
    The CRMP implements a risk-informed configuration risk 
management program in a manner to assure that adequate margins of 
safety are maintained. Application of the configuration risk 
management program to TS 3.7.7 complements the risk assessment 
required by the Maintenance Rule and effectively manages the risk 
for limiting condition for operation when the Control Room Makeup 
and Cleanup Filtration Systems are inoperable.
    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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 5, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise facility operating license NPF-90 to remove license condition 
2.G. This license condition describes reporting requirements of other 
requirements in Section 2.C of the facility operating license. The 
proposed change is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC)-approved change notice published in the Federal Register on 
November 4, 2005 (70 FR 67202), announcing the availability of this 
improvement through the consolidated line item improvement process. The 
Federal Register Notice included a model safety evaluation and model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, relating to the 
elimination of the license condition involving reporting of violations 
of other requirements (typically in License Conditions 2.C) in the 
operating license of some commercial nuclear power plants. The licensee 
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its 
application dated October 5, 2011.

[[Page 67491]]

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The proposed change involves the deletion of a reporting 
requirement. The change does not affect plant equipment or operating 
practices and therefore does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is administrative in that it deletes a 
reporting requirement. The change does not add new plant equipment, 
change existing plant equipment, or affect the operating practices 
of the facility. Therefore, the change 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.
    The proposed change deletes a reporting requirement. The change 
does not affect plant equipment or operating practices and therefore 
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2011.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray and 
Cooling Systems.'' Specifically, the amendment would revise 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.6.3 for verifying the minimum 
required containment cooling train cooling water flow rate. Rather than 
require verifying each containment cooling train has a cooling water 
flow rate greater than or equal to 2200 gallons per minute (gpm), TS SR 
3.6.6.3 would be revised to require verification that the flow rate is 
capable of being ``within limits'' for achieving the heat removal rate 
assumed in the Callaway Plant safety analyses. This change is supported 
by a change in the TS Bases for SR 3.6.6.3 to indicate where the flow 
rate limits are specified as well as to note that these limits provide 
assurance that the heat removal rate assumed in the Callaway Plant 
safety analyses will be achieved. The reason for the proposed change to 
TS SR 3.6.6.3 is to ensure that the surveillance verifies each 
containment cooling train has a flow rate capable of removing 141.4 x 
10\6\ Btu per hour as assumed in the Callaway Plant safety analyses of 
record. The assumed heat removal rate does not vary; however, the 
cooling water flow rate does change based on changing system 
conditions/parameters (e.g., tube plugging and tube fouling) and, 
therefore, the cooling water flow rate should not be quantified in the 
TS.
    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 changes for verifying the minimum required 
containment cooling train cooling water flow rate have no impact on 
the frequency of occurrence of any of the accidents evaluated in the 
FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. Changing from a specific flow 
rate to a flow rate ``within limits'' based on current system 
parameters has no impact on the likelihood of occurrence of a loss 
of coolant accident (LOCA), steam line break (SLB), plant transient, 
loss of offsite power (LOOP), or any such accident because the 
precursors for such accidents do not involve containment cooling. 
The failure or malfunction of a containment cooling train (due, for 
example, to an inadequate cooling flow rate) is not itself an 
initiator or precursor of any accident previously evaluated.
    The CtCS [containment cooling system] and CSS [containment spray 
system] provide complementary methods of containment atmosphere 
cooling to limit post accident pressure and temperature in 
containment to less than the design values. They are designed to 
ensure that the heat removal capability required during the post 
accident period can be attained. Changing the limit for the minimum 
required CtCS cooling train flow from a specified value to ``within 
limits'' appropriately accounts for changes in system conditions 
while still requiring the heat removal rate specified in the 
accident analysis to be met. Consequently, the proposed changes do 
not involve a change in the required performance of the CtCS and 
therefore do not adversely affect the accident mitigation function 
of the CtCS.
    The CtCS, operating in conjunction with the containment 
ventilation systems, is also designed to limit the ambient 
containment air temperature during normal unit operation to less 
than the limit specified in LCO [Limiting Condition of Operation] 
3.6.5, ``Containment Air Temperature.'' This temperature limitation 
ensures that the containment temperature does not exceed the initial 
temperature conditions assumed for the DBAs [design basis 
accidents]. The proposed change does not impact the capability of 
the CtCS to maintain containment temperature to within this initial 
temperature condition for DBAs.
    The proposed changes will not affect accident initiators or 
precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The manner in which the ESW [essential 
service water] system is flow balanced to ensure adequate cooling 
water flow to all loads required for accident mitigation, including 
the containment coolers, will not be changed and is in fact 
supported by the proposed changes. In general, therefore, the 
proposed changes will not alter or prevent the ability of 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended 
functions to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within 
the assumed acceptance limits.
    All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be 
met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect 
the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release 
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter 
any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological 
consequence evaluations in the FSAR. Consequently, the applicable 
radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
    There are no proposed changes in the method by which any safety-
related plant SSC performs its safety function. The proposed changes 
will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any 
operating parameters. No equipment design or performance 
requirements will be affected, including the design and performance 
requirements for the CtCS and ESW system. The proposed changes will 
not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses.
    No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a 
result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or 
challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this 
amendment.

[[Page 67492]]

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different [kind of] accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. 
The proposed change will have no effect on those plant systems 
necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. 
There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from 
nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor 
(FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (F[Delta]H), loss of 
coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local 
power density, or any other limit or margin of safety. The 
applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will 
continue to be met since the proposed changes have no impact on the 
radiological consequences of any design basis accident.
    With respect to the containment, and as already noted, changing 
the limit for the minimum required CtCS cooling train flow from a 
specified value to ``within limits'' appropriately accounts for 
changes in system conditions/parameters while still requiring the 
heat removal rate specified in the accident analysis to be met. 
Consequently, the CtCS function for limiting post-accident pressure 
and temperature in the containment building is not adversely 
affected, and the margins between the calculated peak accident 
pressure and temperature in the containment and the corresponding 
containment design limits are unchanged.
    The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillance or alter 
the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical 
Specifications. None of the acceptance criteria for any accident 
analysis will be changed.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these 
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) The 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received 
at the NRC are accessible online 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 email 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 application for amendment: January 20, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 3 Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.g, ``Steam 
Generator (SG) Program,'' to exclude a portion of the tubes below the 
top of the steam generator tubesheet from periodic steam generator tube 
inspections during Refueling Outage 14 and the subsequent operating 
cycle. The amendment also revises the reporting criteria in MPS3 TS 
6.9.1.7, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to remove 
reference to previous one-time alternate repair criteria and add 
reporting requirements specific to temporary alternate repair criteria.
    Date of issuance: October 7, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance and prior to Mode 5 startup.
    Amendment No.: 252.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2011 (76 FR 
39136). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: October 28, 2010, as 
supplemented by letters dated April 8, 2011 and July 1, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources Operating,'' by removing mode 
restrictions to perform certain Surveillance Requirements for the 
Division 3 High Pressure Core Spray emergency diesel generator.
    Date of issuance: October 17, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 197.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 25, 2011 (76 FR 
4385). The April 8, 2011, and July 1, 2011, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 67493]]

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: June 23, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments removed the Table 
of Contents from the Technical Specifications and placed them under 
licensee control. The Table of Contents is not being eliminated. 
Responsibility for maintenance and issuance of the Table of Contents 
will transfer from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to NextEra 
Energy Point Beach, LLC.
    Date of issuance: October 11, 2011.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from date of 
issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 245 (for Unit 1) and 249 (for Unit 2).
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 26, 2011 (76 FR 
44617).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 11, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and 
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
Circumstances)

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules 
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as 
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 
CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a fi