Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12763 

Dated: March 3, 2011. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5151 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) has submitted the 

following information collection 

requirements to OMB for review and 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. Comments regarding (a) whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology should be 

addressed to: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for National Science 

Foundation, 725—17th Street, NW., 

Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 

and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports 

Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 

Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or 

send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov. 

Comments regarding these information 

collections are best assured of having 

their full effect if received within 30 

days of this notification. Copies of the 

submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling 703–292–7556. 

NSF may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number 

and the agency informs potential 

persons who are to respond to the 

collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Survey of Earned Doctorates. 

OMB Control Number: 3145–0019. 

Summary of Collection: The Survey of 

Earned Doctorates has been conducted 

continuously since 1958 and is jointly 

sponsored by six Federal agencies in 

order to avoid duplication. It is an 

accurate, timely source of information 

on our Nation’s most precious 

resource—highly educated individuals. 

Data are obtained via paper 

questionnaire or Web survey from each 

person earning a research doctorate at 

the time they receive the degree. 

Graduate schools help distribute the 

Survey of Earned Doctorates to their 

graduating doctorate recipients. Data are 

collected on the doctorate recipient’s 

field of specialty, educational 

background, sources of support in 

graduate school, debt level, 

postgraduation plans for employment, 

and demographic characteristics. 

The survey will be collected in 

conformance with the National Science 

Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 

and the Privacy Act of 1974. Responses 

from individuals are voluntary. NSF 

will ensure that all individually 

identifiable information collected will 

be kept strictly confidential and will be 

used for research or statistical purposes, 

analyzing data, and preparing scientific 

reports and articles. 

Comment: On December 10, 2010 we 

published in the Federal Register (75 

FR 77008) a 60-day notice of our intent 

to request reinstatement of this 

information collection authority from 

OMB. In that notice, we solicited public 

comments for 60 days ending February 

10, 2011. One comment was received 

from the public notice. The comment 

came from Ms. Jean Public of Floram 

Park, NJ, via e-mail on December 10, 

2010. Ms. Public objected to the 

information collection. Ms. Public had 

no specific suggestions for altering the 

data collection plans other than to 

discontinue them entirely. 

Response: We responded to Ms. 

Public on December 20, 2010 describing 

the program, the frequency and the cost 

issues raised by Ms. Public. NSF 

believes the comment does not pertain 

to the collection of information on the 

required forms for which NSF is seeking 

OMB approval, and so NSF is 

proceeding with the clearance request. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

Federal government, universities, 

researchers, and others use the 

information extensively. The National 

Science Foundation, as the lead agency, 

publishes statistics from the survey in 

several reports, but primarily in the 

annual publication series, ‘‘Science and 

Engineering Doctorate Awards’’ and the 

Interagency Report, ‘‘Doctorate 

Recipients from U.S. Universities.’’ 

These reports are available on the Web. 

NSF uses this information to prepare 

congressionally mandated reports such 

as Science and Engineering Indicators 

and Women, Minorities and Persons 

with Disabilities in Science and 

Engineering. 

Description of Respondents: 

Individuals. 

Number of Respondents: 51,000. 

Frequency of Responses: Annually. 

Total Burden Hours: 29,009. 

Dated: March 3, 2011. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5213 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0049] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC) 

is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from February 8, 

2011 to February 23, 2011. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9821). 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements and Directives Branch 

(RADB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be faxed to the RADB at 301–492– 

3446. Documents may be examined, 

and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Room O1– 

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

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, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://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, 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 EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the Internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E–Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12765 

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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

apply-certificates.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s 

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

public Web site at http://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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E–Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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 firstclass 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 http:// 

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. Nontimely filings will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the presiding 

officer that the petition or request 

should be granted or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

license amendment application, see the 

application for amendment which is 

available for public inspection at the 

Commission’s PDR, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. Publicly available 

records will be accessible from the 

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

site, http://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. 

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Date of amendment request: July 23, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

several of the Required Actions in the 

Ginna Technical Specifications that 

require the suspension of operations 

involving positive reactivity additions 

or suspension of operations that would 

cause the reduction of the reactor 

coolant system boron concentration. 

The proposed changes are similar to 

those documented in Industry Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF)-286, 

Revision 2, Define ‘‘Operations 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

Involving Positive Reactivity 

Additions.’’ 

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 Technical Specifications (TS) 

addressed in this proposed change prevent 

inadvertent addition of positive reactivity 

which could challenge the shutdown margin 

of the reactor core. The current TS contain 

rigid requirements that sometimes pose 

operational difficulties without significantly 

increasing safety. The intent of the change is 

to allow small, controlled, and safe insertions 

of positive reactivity that are now 

categorically prohibited to allow operational 

flexibility. These new activities could result 

in a slight change in the probability of an 

event occurring because reactor coolant 

system (RCS) manipulations that are 

currently prohibited would now be allowed. 

However, to preclude an increase in the 

probability of a reactivity addition accident, 

RCS manipulations are rigidly controlled to 

ensure that the reactivity remains within the 

required shutdown margin. 

The proposed change does not permit the 

shutdown margin to be reduced below that 

required by the TS. While the proposed 

change will permit changes in the 

discretionary boron concentration above the 

TS requirements, this excess concentration is 

not credited in the Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report accident analysis. Because 

the initial conditions assumed in the safety 

analysis are preserved, no increase in the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated would occur. In addition, small 

temperature changes in the RCS impose 

reactivity changes by means of the moderator 

temperature coefficient of reactivity. These 

small changes are within the required 

shutdown margin which also bounds the 

reactivity addition accident analysis ensuring 

there is no increase in the consequence of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

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. 

This proposed amendment allows for 

minor plant operational adjustments without 

adversely impacting the safety analysis 

required shut down margin. It does not 

involve any change to plant equipment or the 

shutdown margin requirements in the TS, 

and no new accident precursors are created. 

Therefore, the proposed change will 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 in Modes 3, 4, 5, and 

6 is preserved by the TS required shutdown 

margin which prevents a return to criticality. 

The proposed change will permit reductions 

in the discretionary shutdown margin only 

within the limits of the TS, thereby 

maintaining the margin of safety within the 

accident analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change will not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, 

Sr. Counsel—Nuclear Generation, 

Constellation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt 

Street, 17th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of amendment request: 

December 10, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Technical Specifications (TSs) by 

adding new Surveillance Requirement 

(SR) 3.3.8.6, to TS 3.3.8, ‘‘Emergency 

Exhaust System (EES) Actuation 

Instrumentation.’’ The new SR would 

require the performance of response 

time testing on the portion of the EES 

required to isolate the normal fuel 

building ventilation exhaust flow path 

and initiate the fuel building ventilation 

isolation signal (FBVIS) mode of 

operation. The new SR 3.3.8.6 would 

have a note excluding the radiation 

monitor detectors from response time 

testing. In addition, the amendment 

would revise TS Table 3.3.8–1 to 

indicate that the new SR 3.3.8.6 applies 

to automatic actuation Function 2, 

‘‘Automatic Actuation Logic and 

Actuation Relays (BOP ESFAS [Balance 

of Plant Emergency Safety Features 

Actuation System]),’’ and Function 3, 

‘‘Fuel Building Exhaust Radiation— 

Gaseous.’’ Finally, there will be 

corresponding changes to the Final 

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). 

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. 

There are no design changes associated 

with the proposed change. All design, 

material, and construction standards that 

were applicable prior to this amendment 

request will continue to be applicable. 

The proposed change will not affect 

accident initiators or precursors nor 

adversely alter the design assumptions, 

conditions, and configuration of the facility 

or the manner in which the plant is operated 

and maintained with respect to such 

initiators or precursors. There will be no 

change to fuel handling methods and 

procedures. Therefore, there will be no 

changes that would serve to increase the 

likelihood of occurrence of a fuel handling 

accident. 

The proposed change changes a 

performance requirement, but it does not 

physically alter safety-related systems nor 

affect the way in which safety-related 

systems perform their functions. 

The proposed TS change will serve to 

assure that the fuel building ventilation 

exhaust ESF [emergency safety feature] 

response time is tested and confirmed to be 

in accordance with the system design and 

consistent with the assumptions of the fuel 

building FHA [fuel handling accident] 

analysis (as revised). As such, the proposed 

change will not alter or prevent the capability 

of structures, systems, and components 

(SSCs) to perform their intended functions 

for mitigating the consequences of an 

accident and meeting applicable acceptance 

limits. 

The proposed change will not affect the 

source term used in evaluating the 

radiological consequences of a fuel handling 

accident in the fuel building. However, the 

Fuel Building Ventilation Exhaust ESF 

response time has been increased to 90 

seconds in recognition of the total delay 

times involved in the generation of a fuel 

building ventilation isolation signal (FBVIS) 

and the times required for actuated 

components to change state to their required 

safety configurations. Consequently, the fuel 

handling accident radiological consequences 

as reported in FSAR [Final Safety Analysis 

Report] Table 15.7–8 have increased. 

However, the increases are much less than 

the upper limit of ‘‘minimal’’ as defined 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(iii) and NEI 

[Nuclear Energy Institute] 96–07 Revision 1 

[‘‘Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 

Implementation,’’ November 2000]. 

Therefore, there is no significant increase in 

the calculated consequences of a postulated 

design basis fuel handling accident in the 

fuel building. The applicable radiological 

dose criteria of 10 CFR 100.11, 10 CFR 50 

Appendix A General Design Criterion 19, and 

SRP [NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan 

for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for 

Nuclear Power Plants: LWR [Light-WaterReactor] Edition’’] 15.7.4 will continue to be 

met. New SR 3.3.8.6 is added to ensure 

system performance consistent with the 

accident analyses and associated dose 

calculations (as revised). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12767 

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. 

With respect to any new or different kind 

of accident, there are no proposed design 

changes nor are there any changes in the 

method by which any safety-related plant 

SSC performs its specified safety function. 

The proposed change will not affect the 

normal method of plant operation or change 

any operating parameters. No new accident 

scenarios, transient precursors, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures will 

be introduced as a result of this amendment. 

The proposed amendment will not alter the 

design or performance of the 7300 Process 

Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation 

System, Solid State Protection System, BOP 

ESFAS, MSFIS [Main Steam and Feed 

Isolation System], or LSELS [Load Shedding 

and Emergency Load Sequencing] used in the 

plant protection systems. 

The proposed change does not, therefore, 

create the possibility of a new or different 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

There will be no effect on those plant 

systems necessary to assure the 

accomplishment of protection functions 

associated with reactor operation or the 

reactor coolant system. 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 (FDH), loss 

of coolant accident peak cladding 

temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power 

density, or any other limit and associated 

margin of safety. Required shutdown margins 

in the COLR [Core Operating Limits Report] 

will not be changed. 

The proposed change does not eliminate 

any surveillances or alter the frequency of 

surveillances required by the Technical 

Specifications. The proposed change would 

add a new Technical Specification 

Surveillance Requirement for assuring the 

satisfactory performance of the fuel building 

ventilation exhaust ESF function in response 

to a[n] FBVIS. The accident analysis for a 

fuel handling accident in the fuel building 

was re-performed to support the proposed 

Fuel Building Ventilation Exhaust ESF 

response time, and this reanalysis 

demonstrated that the acceptance criteria 

continue to be met with only a slight increase 

in radiological consequences (i.e., less than 

one percent). 

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: 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, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 

20852. Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://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. 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 

2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of application for amendments: 

November 23, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated January 26, April 22, July 

23, August 9, October 29, November 19, 

December 30, 2010, and January 14, 

January 18, January 28, February 11, and 

February 15, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the licensing basis 

and the Technical Specifications to 

allow the use of AREVA Advanced CE– 

14 HTP fuel in the Calvert Cliffs 

reactors. The AREVA Advanced CE–14 

HTP fuel design consists of standard 

uranium dioxide (U02) fuel pellets with 

gadolinium oxide (Gd203) burnable 

poison and M5 cladding. 

Date of issuance: February 18, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 30 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 297 and 273. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments 

revised the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23810). 

The letters dated July 23, August 9, 

October 29, November 19, December 30, 

2010, and January 14, January 18, 

January 28, February 11, and February 

15, 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 these amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 18, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: February 

22, 2010, as supplemented by letters 

dated December 3, 2010, and January 

19, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3⁄4.9.4, ‘‘Containment 

Building Penetrations,’’ to allow 

alternative means of penetration closure 

during core alterations or irradiated fuel 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12768 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

movement while in refueling 

operations. In addition, certain 

improvements to this TS, as well as the 

elimination of TS 3⁄4.9.9, ‘‘Containment 

Purge Valve Isolation System,’’ were 

made. The changes are similar to 

Revision 3 of NUREG–1432, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specifications, Combustion 

Engineering Plants.’’ 

Date of issuance: February 23, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 90 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 231. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

38: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23813). 

The supplemental letters dated 

December 3, 2010, and January 19, 2011, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 15, 2010, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 21, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment relocates selected 

Surveillance Requirement frequencies 

from the Clinton Power Station, (CPS) 

Unit No. 1, technical specifications 

(TSs) to a licensee-controlled program. 

This change is based on the NRCapproved Industry Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

change TSTF–425, ‘‘Relocate 

Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 

Control—Risk Informed Technical 

Specification Task Force (RITSTF) 

Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3, (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession Package 

No. ML090850642). Furthermore, some 

plant-specific deviations from TSTF– 

425 were also incorporated into the CPS 

TSs. 

Date of issuance: February 15, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment No.: 192. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

62: The amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23814). 

The May 21, 2010, supplement 

contained clarifying information and 

did not change the NRC staff’s initial 

proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 15, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, 

Date of amendment request: February 

16, 2010, as supplemented by letter 

dated June 22, 2010. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments relocate selected 

Surveillance Requirement frequencies 

from the Quad Cities Nuclear Power 

Station Units 1 and 2 Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to a licenseecontrolled program. This change is 

based on the NRC-approved Industry 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) change TSTF–425, ‘‘Relocate 

Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 

Control—Risk Informed Technical 

Specification Task Force (RITSTF) 

Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3, (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession Package 

No. ML090850642). 

Date of issuance: February 18, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 248/243. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–29 and DPR–30: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20638). 

The June 22, 2010, supplement, 

contained clarifying information and 

did not change the NRC staff’s initial 

proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 18, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), 

Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 24, 2010, as supplemented 

September 20, 2010, and November 5, 

2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.7.11, ‘‘Control Room 

Emergency Air Temperature Control 

System (CREATCS).’’ The amendment 

will only be applicable during plant 

modifications to upgrade the CREATCS 

chillers. This ‘‘one-time’’ TS change will 

be implemented during WBN Unit 1 

Cycles 10 and 11 beginning March 1, 

2011, and ending April 30, 2012. 

Date of issuance: February 8, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented no 

later than 90 days from date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 85. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

90: Amendment revised the License and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR 30447). 

The supplements dated September 20 

and November 5, 2010, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 8, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of February 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4829 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0006] 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATES: Weeks of March 7, 14, 21, 28, 

April 4, 11, 2011. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of March 7, 2011 

Thursday, March 10, 2011 

3:30 p.m. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES