16004 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 

containing information on collected and 

seized software applications used to 

facilitate a criminal act. 

11. Department of Justice, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (N1–65–10–40, 

3 items, 2 temporary items). Master files 

of an electronic information system 

used to manage case workflow, 

including electronic versions of case 

files and indices for cases previously 

approved as temporary. Proposed for 

permanent retention are electronic 

versions of case files and indices for 

cases previously approved as permanent 

12. Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division (N1–60–10–24, 4 

items, 4 temporary items). Program files 

of the Office of General Counsel, 

including opinions issued regarding 

issues such as government contracts, 

appropriations, human resources, 

property, records management, and 

procurement protest case files. 

13. Department of Justice, Office of 

the Inspector General (N1–60–11–1, 1 

item, 1 temporary item). Master files of 

an electronic information system used 

to track employee security information. 

14. Department of Justice, Office of 

the Inspector General (N1–60–11–2, 

5 items, 5 temporary items). Master files 

and outputs of an electronic information 

system containing current and historical 

employment data, complete personnel 

directories, and on duty and promotion 

date reports. 

15. Department of Justice, Office of 

the Inspector General (N1–60–11–3, 

2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files 

of an electronic information system 

used to monitor accepted and rejected 

proposals for evaluations and 

inspections. 

16. Department of Justice, Office of 

Public Affairs (N1–60–10–13, 4 items, 

2 temporary items). Records include 

press release materials and public 

awareness reports. Proposed for 

permanent retention are master copies 

of press releases and related indices. 

17. Department of Labor, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration (N1– 

317–09–2, 13 items, 13 temporary 

items). Records of the Office of 

Enforcement, including investigative 

case files, application files, and 

miscellaneous records documenting 

intelligence efforts. Also included are 

inputs, master files, outputs, and system 

documentation of an electronic 

information system used to track case 

management operations. 

18. Department of Labor, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration (N1– 

317–11–1, 8 items, 7 temporary items). 

Records of an electronic information 

system used to process annual reports of 

private pension and welfare plans. 

Records include inputs, master files, 

outputs, reports, web portal records, 

administrative and management 

records, and communication letters. 

Proposed for permanent retention are 

annual XML archive files of the system. 

19. Department of Labor, Human 

Resources Center (N1–174–09–3, 36 

items, 31 temporary items). Records 

used to provide guidance for 

administrative, program management, 

and information technology related 

functions. Proposed for permanent 

retention are organizational charts, 

architectural drawings, and major 

correspondence of the Secretary of 

Labor and senior-level officials. 

20. Department of State, Bureau of 

East Asian and Pacific Affairs (N1–59– 

11–1, 2 items, 2 temporary items). 

Records of the Office of Public 

Diplomacy including subject and 

program files and annual small grant 

competition files. 

21. Department of State, Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security (N1–59–10–11, 

6 items, 6 temporary items). Records of 

the Office of Investigations and 

Counterintelligence Criminal 

Investigation Division, consisting of 

criminal investigation case files, 

internal and external MOAs and MOUs, 

program files, status reports, budget 

records related to the Department of 

Justice’s asset forfeiture program, and 

records related to the Department of the 

Treasury’s financial crimes enforcement 

program. The criminal investigations 

case files are related to an electronic 

system covered by N1–059–09–36. If the 

Department of State becomes aware of 

any significant or precedent-setting 

cases that warrant preservation, the 

Department will notify NARA and an 

independent appraisal of these cases 

will be conducted. 

22. Department of State, Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security (N1–59–10–27, 1 

item, 1 temporary item). Web site 

records of the Overseas Security 

Advisory Council, used to share 

information on overseas security issues 

such as travel warnings, critical incident 

reports, and current updates on country 

or regional events. 

23. Department of the Treasury, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau (N1–564–09–8, 

2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files 

of an electronic information system 

used to track beverage samples and test 

results. 

24. Department of the Treasury, 

Internal Revenue Service (N1–58–10– 

16, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Master 

files and system documentation of an 

electronic information system used to 

monitor staff productivity and customer 

service in the field. 

25. Department of the Treasury, 

Internal Revenue Service (N1–58–11–5, 

2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files 

and system documentation of an 

electronic information system used to 

track requests for technical support for 

agency computer systems. 

26. Federal Maritime Commission, 

Agency-wide (N1–358–10–2, 3 items, 3 

temporary items). Reading files and 

subject files relating to operational or 

managerial activities for the Office of 

the Managing Director. 

27. Federal Maritime Commission, 

Agency-wide (N1–358–11–1, 1 item, 1 

temporary item). Master files of an 

electronic information system that 

collects and reports information 

concerning training employees have 

taken. 

28. Federal Trade Commission, 

Bureau of Economics (N1–122–98–1, 2 

items, 1 temporary item). Records of the 

Division of Industry Analysis, including 

working papers of analyses of cigarettes 

and the cigarette industry. Proposed for 

permanent retention are published and 

unpublished reports. 

29. Department of Commerce, Patent 

and Trademark Office (N1–241–09–1, 35 

items, 19 temporary items). Records of 

the Intellectual Property 

Administration, including rulemaking 

files, routine correspondence, subject 

files, administrative files for outreach 

programs, public advisory committees 

and operational legal activities. 

Proposed for permanent retention are 

the Director’s action and subject files, 

Management Council records, 

successful nominations for the National 

Medal of Technology and Innovation 

Award, official records of public 

advisory committees, precedential court 

cases, patent appeal cases, Trademark 

Trial and Appeal Board case files, and 

attorney enrollment examinations. 

Dated: March 16, 2011. 

Sharon G. Thibodeau, 

Deputy Assistant Archivist for Records 

Services—Washington, DC. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6832 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0061] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 16005 

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

Commission (the Commission or NRC) 

is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from February 24, 

2011, to March 9, 2011. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12763). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, 

this means that operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements and Directives Branch 

(RADB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be faxed to the RADB at 301–492– 

3446. Documents may be examined, 

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

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 

2. Interested person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
16006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 

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 EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at 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 EIE, users will be 

required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further 

information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at 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 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 16007 

Commission’s PDR, located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area O1 

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 

records will be accessible from the 

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

site, 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. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et 

al., Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power 

Station, Unit No. 3, New London 

County, Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: July 21, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would relocate 

Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 

(MPS3) Technical Specification (TS) 3/ 

4.7.14, ‘‘Area Temperature Monitoring,’’ 

and the associated Table 3.7–6, ‘‘Area 

Temperature Monitoring,’’ to the MPS3 

Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

Criterion 1 

Will operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The provisions of TS 3/4.7.14 for area 

temperature monitoring of the TS specified 

or selected areas are neither part of an initial 

condition of a design basis accident or 

transient that either assumes the failure of or 

presents a challenge to the integrity of a 

fission product barrier, nor are they relied 

upon as a primary success path to mitigate 

such events. The provisions for area 

temperature monitoring are not related to 

events which are considered frequent or 

dominant contributors to plant risk. Area 

temperature monitoring is not considered a 

design feature or an operating restriction 

which is an initial condition of a design basis 

accident or transient analysis, nor does it 

provide a function or actuate any accident 

mitigation feature in order to mitigate the 

consequences of a design basis accident or 

transient. 

The environmental qualification and 

operability of the safety-related equipment 

will not be adversely affected by the 

proposed changes to the area temperature 

monitoring program. The relocation of the TS 

to the TRM will not increase the probability 

that the area temperature design limits will 

be exceeded or result in a loss of qualified 

life of safety-related equipment. In addition, 

the consequences of exceeding the 

temperature limits will not significantly 

differ from the existing program since an 

evaluation of qualified life and operability 

will continue to be performed as part of the 

EQ [Environmental Qualification] program in 

accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 

50.49 [Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Section 50.49]. 

Relocating TS 3/4.7.14 to the TRM will still 

provide adequate controls for area 

temperature monitoring in those areas 

designated in TS Table 3.7–6. Changes to the 

TRM require 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations 

and are reviewed and approved by the 

Facility Safety Review Committee prior to 

implementation. 

Based on the reasons presented above, 

operation of the facility in accordance with 

the proposed amendment would not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 2 

Will operation of the facility in accordance 

with this proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. No new accident will be created 

as a result of relocating TS 3/4.7.14 to the 

TRM. This change is administrative in nature 

and does not change the level of 

programmatic and procedural control 

necessary to assure operation of the facility 

in a safe manner. Plant operation will not be 

affected by the proposed change and no new 

failure modes will be created. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3 

Will operation of the facility in accordance 

with this proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in [a] margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

There is no adverse impact on equipment 

design or operation and there are no changes 

being made to the TS required safety limits 

or safety system settings that would 

adversely affect plant safety. The proposed 

change is administrative in nature and does 

not change the level of programmatic and 

procedural control necessary to ensure that 

environmentally qualified equipment will 

not be exposed to temperatures beyond that 

which they were originally qualified. The 

relocated requirements will continue to 

ensure that environmental qualification 

temperature limits of safety-related 

equipment will not be exceeded without an 

evaluation of equipment operability; 

therefore, the margin of safety is unchanged. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis, and has the 

following comments regarding the 

licensee’s analysis of Criterion 1: 

While DNC accurately states that the 

temperature monitoring of the TS 

identified areas is not part of an initial 

condition of a design basis accident, 

some of the TS identified areas have 

temperatures limits that are initial 

conditions assumed in selected accident 

analyses. The proposed change relocates 

TS 3/4.7.14 to the TRM, thereby 

changing the administrative controls 

and regulatory process used to modify 

the requirements of this former TS. 

The proposed change dose not revise 

the station design, the response of the 

station to transients nor the manner in 

which the station is operated; therefore, 

these changes have no adverse affect on 

the safe operation of the station. 

Based on the NRC staff’s review of the 

licensee’s analysis and the additional 

analysis performed by the NRC staff, it 

appears that the three standards of 10 

CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the 

NRC staff proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. 

Chernoff. 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 

(NMPNS) Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile 

Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 1 

(NMP1), Oswego County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

November 2, 2010, as supplemented 

January 27, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) Section 

3.6.2, ‘‘Protective Instrumentation,’’ by 

modifying the operability requirements 

for the average power range monitoring 

(APRM) instrumentation system. The 

proposed amendment would eliminate 

the requirements that the APRM 

‘‘Upscale’’ and ‘‘Inoperative’’ scram and 

control rod withdrawal block functions 

be operable when the reactor mode 

switch is in the Refuel position, and 

would clarify the operability 

requirements for the APRM 

‘‘Downscale’’ control rod withdrawal 

block function when the reactor mode 

switch is in the Startup and Refuel 

positions. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
16008 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The APRM system is not an initiator of or 

a precursor to any accident or transient. The 

APRM system monitors the neutron flux 

level in the power operating range from a few 

percent to greater than rated thermal power 

and provides automatic protective signals for 

postulated at-power reactivity insertion 

events. Thus, the proposed changes to the TS 

operability requirements for the APRM 

system will not significantly impact the 

probability of any previously evaluated 

accident. 

The design of plant equipment is not being 

modified by the proposed amendment. The 

TSs will continue to require operability of 

the APRM system ‘‘Upscale’’ and 

‘‘Inoperative’’ scram and control rod 

withdrawal block functions when the reactor 

mode switch is in the Startup and Run 

positions to provide core protection for 

postulated reactivity insertion events 

occurring during power operating conditions. 

Thus, the consequences of previously 

evaluated at-power reactivity insertion events 

are not affected by the proposed amendment. 

The proposed elimination of the TS 

requirements that the APRM system 

‘‘Upscale’’ and ‘‘Inoperative’’ scram and 

control rod withdrawal block functions be 

operable when the reactor mode switch is in 

the Refuel position does not increase the 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. The NMP1 Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (UFSAR) does not provide 

analyses of reactivity insertion events 

occurring during the refueling operating 

condition. The possibility of inadvertent 

criticality due to a control rod withdrawal 

error during refueling is minimized by design 

features and procedural controls that are not 

affected by the proposed amendment. In 

addition, since reactor neutron flux levels 

during refueling are below the APRM 

indicating range, the APRM system does not 

provide any meaningful core monitoring or 

protection in the refueling operating 

condition. The source range and intermediate 

range neutron monitoring systems provide 

adequate neutron flux monitoring during 

refueling and automatically initiate 

protective actions (scram or control rod 

withdrawal block) when required during 

refueling. 

The change to the TS operability 

requirements for the APRM ‘‘Downscale’’ 

control rod withdrawal block function is a 

clarification to more simply and clearly 

indicate that this function is not required 

when the reactor mode switch is in the 

Startup and Refuel positions. This change is 

consistent with plant design and does not 

change the actual TS operability 

requirements; thus, previously evaluated 

accidents are not affected by this proposed 

change. 

Based on the above discussion, it is 

concluded that the proposed amendment 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the TS operability 

requirements for the APRM system do not 

introduce any new accident precursors and 

do not involve any physical plant alterations 

or changes in the methods governing normal 

plant operation that could initiate a new or 

different kind of accident. The proposed 

amendment does not alter the intended 

function of the APRM system and does not 

adversely affect the ability of the system to 

provide core protection for at-power 

reactivity insertion events. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is related to confidence in 

the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel 

cladding, reactor coolant system, and 

primary containment) to perform their design 

functions during and following postulated 

accidents. The proposed amendment does 

not alter setpoints or limits established or 

assumed by the accident analyses. The 

proposed TS changes to eliminate the 

requirements that the APRM system 

‘‘Upscale’’ and ‘‘Inoperative’’ scram and 

control rod withdrawal block functions be 

operable when the reactor mode switch is in 

the Refuel position have no impact on the 

performance of the fission product barriers 

since these APRM functions do not provide 

any meaningful core monitoring or protection 

in the Refueling operating condition. The TSs 

will continue to require operability of these 

APRM functions when the reactor mode 

switch is in the Startup and Run positions to 

provide core protection for postulated 

reactivity insertion events occurring during 

power operating conditions, consistent with 

the plant safety analyses. 

The change to the TS operability 

requirements for the APRM ‘‘Downscale’’ 

control rod withdrawal block function is a 

clarification to more simply and clearly 

indicate that this function is not required 

when the reactor mode switch is in the 

Startup and Refuel positions. This change is 

consistent with plant design and does not 

change the actual TS operability 

requirements; thus, previously evaluated 

accidents are not affected by this proposed 

change. 

Based on the above discussion, it is 

concluded that the proposed amendment 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Carey W. 

Fleming, Senior Counsel, Constellation 

Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 

Constellation Way, Suite 200C, 

Baltimore, MD 21202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: February 

4, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications (TS) 

to make administrative changes which 

will: (1) in TS Section 5.2.1, allow 

certain requirements of onsite and 

offsite organizations to be documented 

in the Quality Assurance Topical Report 

(QATR); and (2) in TS Section 5.3, 

remove reference to specific education 

and experience requirements for 

operator license applicants. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No 

This license amendment request proposes 

to (1) revise Technical Specification 5.2.1(a) 

by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical 

Report (QATR) as an allowed location for 

documentation of requirements for lines of 

authority, responsibility, and 

communication; and (2) revise Technical 

Specification 5.3.1 by removal of an 

exception for operator license applicants’ 

education and experience requirements, and 

the reference to a letter which references a 

specific industry guidance document. These 

are administrative changes. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

and therefore do not significantly affect any 

system that is a contributor to initiating 

events for previously evaluated accidents. 

Nor do the changes significantly affect any 

system that is used to mitigate any previously 

evaluated accidents. Therefore, the proposed 

changes do not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequence of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request proposes 

to (1) revise Technical Specification 5.2.1(a) 

by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical 

Report (QATR) as an allowed location for 

documentation of requirements for lines of 

authority, responsibility, and 

communication; and (2) revise Technical 

Specification 5.3.1 by removal of an 

exception for operator license applicants’ 

education and experience requirements, and 

the reference to a letter which references a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 16009 

specific industry guidance document. These 

are administrative changes. 

The proposed administrative changes do 

not alter the design, function, or operation of 

any plant component, nor do they involve 

installation of any new or different 

equipment. Therefore, the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from those 

previously evaluated has not been created. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

This license amendment request proposes 

to (1) revise Technical Specification 5.2.1(a) 

by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical 

Report (QATR) as an allowed location for 

documentation of requirements for lines of 

authority, responsibility, and 

communication; and (2) revise Technical 

Specification 5.3.1 by removal of an 

exception for operator license applicants’ 

education and experience requirements, and 

the reference to a letter which references a 

specific industry guidance document. These 

are administrative changes. 

The proposed changes are administrative 

and therefore do not involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 

1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire. 

Date of application for amendments: 

January 27, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would modify Technical Specification 

(TS) 6.7.6.k, ‘‘Steam Generator,’’ and TS 

6.8.1.7, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube 

Inspection Report,’’ to allow 

implementation of alternate repair 

criteria. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: March 1, 

2011 (FR 76 11291). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

March 31, 2011 (public comments) and 

May 2, 2011 (hearing requests). 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for A Hearing in 

connection with these actions was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20850–2738. Publicly 

available records will be accessible from 

the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the internet at the NRC Web 

site, 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. 

Carolina Power and Light Company, 

Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson 

Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, 

Darlington County, South Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 5, 2010, as supplemented 

November 1, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specifications (TS) Section 3.3.2, 

‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 

System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,’’ to 

allow the performance of maintenance 

activities for an inoperable Containment 

Pressure—High High channel. TS 3.3.6, 

‘‘Containment Ventilation Isolation 

Instrumentation,’’ was revised to correct 

an error related to table references. 

Date of issuance: March 7, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No. 225. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–23. Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR 30443). 

The supplement dated June 8 and 

August 26, 2004, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: April 13, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specification to institute a requirement 

to perform a Logic System Functional 

Test of the Control Rod Block actuation 

instrumentation trip functions once 

every Operating Cycle. 

Date of Issuance: February 23, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 246. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
16010 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR 37474). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: February 

22, 2010, as supplemented by letters 

dated August 12, November 23, and 

December 21, 2010, and January 24, 

2011. 

Brief description of amendment: 

Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), 

was planning to replace the two 

Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 

(Waterford 3) steam generators (SGs) 

during the forthcoming spring 2011 

refueling outage. Based on design 

changes in the replacement SGs, piping 

systems will require rerouting in the SG 

cavity area. The rerouting of SG 

blowdown line cannot be effectively 

performed without removing the 

existing dynamic protection associated 

with the pressurizer surge line. The 

amendment approved revision of the 

Waterford 3 Final Safety Analysis 

Report (FSAR) to allow the removal of 

pipe break dynamic protection 

associated with the pressurizer surge 

line using leak-before-break 

methodologies. The licensee will 

include the revised information in the 

FSAR in the next periodic update in 

accordance with paragraph 50.71(e) of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. The licensee deferred its 

planned SG replacement until the fall 

2012 refueling outage. 

Date of issuance: February 28, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 90 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 232. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

38: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and the Final Safety 

Analyses Report. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20632). 

The supplemental letters dated August 

12, November 23, and December 21, 

2010, and January 24, 2011, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 15, 2010, as supplemented by 

letter dated August 19, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment relocates selected 

Surveillance Requirement frequencies 

from the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 

2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to a 

licensee-controlled program. This 

change is based on the NRC-approved 

Industry Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) change TSTF–425, 

‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 

Licensee Control—Risk Informed 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(RITSTF) Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3, 

(ADAMS Accession Package No. 

ML090850642). 

Date of issuance: February 24, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 165/165. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72 and NPF–77: The amendment 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20635). 

The August 19, 2010, supplement 

contained clarifying information and 

did not change the NRC staff’s initial 

proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Ogle County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 15, 2010, as supplemented by 

letter dated August 19, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment relocates selected 

Surveillance Requirement frequencies 

from the Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 

2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to a 

licensee-controlled program. This 

change is based on the NRC-approved 

Industry Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) change TSTF–425, 

‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 

Licensee Control—Risk Informed 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(RITSTF) Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3, 

(ADAMS Accession Package No. 

ML090850642). 

Date of issuance: February 24, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 171/171. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

37 and NPF–66: The amendment 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20634). 

The August 19, 2010, supplement 

contained clarifying information and 

did not change the NRC staff’s initial 

proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), 

Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: February 

16, 2010, as supplanted by letter dated 

June 22, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

modify the DNPS Units 2 and 3, 

Technical Specifications (TSs) by 

relocating specific surveillance 

frequencies to a licensee-controlled 

program with the adoption of Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF)–425, 

‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 

Licensee Control—Risk Informed 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(RITSTF) Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3. 

Additionally, the change would add a 

new program, the ‘‘Surveillance 

Frequency Control Program [SFCP],’’ to 

TS Section 5, ‘‘Administrative Controls.’’ 

Date of issuance: February 25, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 237/230. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

19 and DPR–25: The amendment 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20636). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 16011 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendments: 

February 15, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated April 26, June 23, and 

August 3, 2010. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments relocate selected 

Surveillance Requirement frequencies 

from the LaSalle County Station Units 1 

and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

a licensee-controlled program. This 

change is based on the NRC-approved 

Industry Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) change TSTF–425, 

‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 

Licensee Control—Risk Informed 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(RITSTF) Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3, 

(ADAMS Accession Package No. 

ML090850642). 

Date of issuance: February 24, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 200/187. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

11 and NPF–18: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20636). 

The April 26, June 23, and August 3, 

2010, supplements contained clarifying 

information and did not change the NRC 

staff’s initial proposed finding of no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–412, 

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, 

Beaver County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 26, 2010, as supplemented 

November 10, 2010 and January 26, 

2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the scope of the 

steam generator tubesheet inspections 

and subsequent repair using the F* 

inspection methodology. 

Date of issuance: February 24, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No: 172. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

73: The amendment revised the License 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 11, 2011 (76 FR 

1648). The supplements dated 

November 10, 2010 and January 27, 

2011, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the NRC staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power and Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey 

Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade 

County, Florida 

Date of application for amendments: 

February 16, 2010, as supplemented 

September 21, and December 2, 2010, 

and February 2, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) by deleting TS 3/ 

4.9.7, ‘‘Crane Travel—Spent Fuel 

Storage Areas,’’ retaining the operational 

limits associated with TS 3/4.9.7 in 

licensee controlled documents, and 

deleting TS 3/4.9.12, ‘‘Handling of Spent 

Fuel Cask.’’ Part of the basis for the 

change is the proposed installation of a 

new single-failure-proof spent fuel cask 

handling crane meeting the 

requirements of NUREG–0554, ‘‘SingleFailure-Proof Cranes for Nuclear Power 

Plants,’’ May 1979. 

Date of issuance: February 25, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos: 243 (Unit 3) and 

239 (Unit 4). 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments 

revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27831). 

The supplements dated September 21, 

2010, December 2, 2010, and February 

2, 2011, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: February 

25, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.9, Diesel 

Generator (DG) Load Test, in TS 3.8.1, 

‘‘AC [Alternating Current] Sources— 

Operating,’’ to correct a nonconservative power factor value. In 

addition, this amendment added a new 

note to SR 3.8.1.9 consistent with 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) change traveler TSTF–276–A, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Revise DG full load 

rejection test.’’ This note allows the DG 

Load Test to be performed at the 

specified power factor with 

clarifications addressing situations 

when the power factor cannot be 

achieved. 

Date of issuance: February 28, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 237. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–46: Amendment revised the 

Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20639). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 12, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modifies the Duane Arnold 

Energy Center (DAEC) Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements for 

unavailable barriers in accordance with 

the adoption of Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–427. 

Date of issuance: February 28, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 277. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–49: The amendment revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 14, 2010 (75 FR 

77914). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 

2011. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
16012 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50– 

354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 

Salem County, New Jersey. 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 19, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 28, 2010, and January 

10, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modifies the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) by relocating 

specific surveillance frequencies to a 

licensee-controlled program. The 

changes are based on Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission-approved TS 

Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF–425, 

Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance 

Frequencies to Licensee Control— 

RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 

5b.’’ 

Date of issuance: February 25, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 120 

days. 

Amendment No.: 187. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

57: The amendment revised the TSs and 

the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33842). 

The letters dated July 28, 2010, and 

January 10, 2011, provided clarifying 

information that did not change the 

initial proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination or expand 

the application beyond the scope of the 

original Federal Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

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

Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of application for amendment: 

May 28, 2010, as supplemented 

December 1, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 4.2.2 ‘‘Control Rod 

Assemblies,’’ to include silver-indiumcadmium material in addition to the 

boron carbide control rod material. 

Date of issuance: February 25, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented no 

later than 90 days from date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 86. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

90: Amendment revised the License and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 27, 2010 (75 FR 44026). 

TVA’s supplement dated December 1, 

2010, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed proposed and did not 

change the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station (WCGS), 

Coffey County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: April 13, 

2010, as supplemented by letters dated 

June 1, 2010, and February 17, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the approved fire 

protection program, as described in the 

response to Question Q280.5 of the 

WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report, 

by removing the high/low pressure 

interface designation of the pressurizer 

power-operated relief valves and their 

associated block valves. The 

amendment also revised license 

condition 2.C.(5)(a) to include the 

change approved by this amendment 

request. 

Date of issuance: March 9, 2011. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 193. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–42: The amendment revised 

the operating license and approved fire 

protection program, as described in the 

WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR 37477). 

The supplemental letter dated February 

17, 2011, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. The 

supplemental letter dated June 1, 2010, 

was included in the original notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of March 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6825 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0063; Docket Nos. 50–498 And 

50–499] 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, et al. 

South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of license amendment 

request, opportunity to comment, 

opportunity to request a hearing. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by April 

21, 2011. A request for a hearing must 

be filed by May 23, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0063 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 http:// 

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 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0063. Comments may be 

submitted electronically through this 

Web site. Address questions about NRC 

dockets to Carol Gallagher 301–492– 

3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Chief, Rules, 

Announcements and Directives Branch 

(RADB), Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: TWB–05–B01M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES