[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18801-18807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7740]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0071]


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 March 10, 2011, to March 23, 2011. The last 
biweekly notice was published on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16004).

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

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

[[Page 18802]]

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/adams.html. 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 E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6ded3d7c4dfd8d198d2d9d5ddd3c2f6d8c4d598d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e060b0f1c070009400a010d050b1a2e001c0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) 
a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant 
(or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and 
access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is 
participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will 
be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in 
which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds 
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate. Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
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/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC Office of the

[[Page 18803]]

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/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#feb3adb6bad0ac9b8d918b8c9d9bbe908c9dd0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9a4baa1adc7bb8c9a869c9b8a8ca9879b8ac78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
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. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#daaabea8f4a8bfa9b5afa8b9bf9ab4a8b9f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="661602144814031509131405032608140548010910">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 22, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
the application of Risk-Managed Technical Specifications (RMTS) to 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup 
Filtration System.'' This change will correct a misapplication of the 
Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP) that is currently allowed 
by the Specification.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management 
Program (CRMP) to be applied to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, 
``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the 
condition where one train of CRHVAC [Control Room Makeup and Cleanup 
Filtration System] is inoperable only due to the unavailability of 
cooling. The proposed change extends the AOT [allowed outage time] 
from 72 hours to 7 days for the condition where two trains of CRHVAC 
are inoperable only due to the unavailability of cooling. The CRMP 
cannot be applied to the loss of two trains of cooling.
    The change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change 
does not involve a change to the plant or its modes of operation. In 
addition, the risk-informed configuration management program will be 
applied to effectively manage the availability of required 
structures, systems, and components to assure there is no 
significant increase in the probability of an accident.
    This proposed change does not increase the consequences of an 
accident because the design-basis mitigation function of the 
affected systems is not changed and the risk-informed configuration 
management program will be applied to effectively manage the 
availability of structures, systems, and components required to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management 
Program (CRMP) to be applied to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, 
``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the 
condition where one train of CRHVAC is inoperable only due to the 
unavailability of cooling. The proposed change extends the AOT from 
72 hours to 7 days for the condition where two trains of CRHVAC are 
inoperable only due to the unavailability of cooling. The CRMP 
cannot be applied to the loss of two trains of cooling.
    The proposed change will not alter the plant configuration (no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any 
unusual operator actions. The proposed change will not alter the way 
any structure, system, or component functions, and will not 
significantly alter the manner in which the plant is operated. The 
response of the plant and the operators following an accident will 
not be different. In addition, the proposed change does not 
introduce any new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different

[[Page 18804]]

kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction to a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management 
Program (CRMP) to be applied to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, 
``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the 
condition where one train of CRHVAC is inoperable only due to the 
unavailability of cooling. The proposed change extends the AOT from 
72 hours to 7 days for the condition where two trains of CRHVAC are 
inoperable only due to the unavailability of cooling. The CRMP 
cannot be applied to the loss of two trains of cooling.
    The CRMP implements a risk-informed configuration risk 
management program in a manner to assure that adequate margins of 
safety are maintained. Application of the configuration risk 
management program to TS 3.7.7 complements the risk assessment 
required by the Maintenance Rule and effectively manages the risk 
for limiting condition for operation when the Control Room Makeup 
and Cleanup Filtration Systems are inoperable.
    The condition where two trains of CRHVAC are inoperable only due 
to unavailability of cooling is analogous to the condition where one 
train of CRHVAC is inoperable due to an adverse impact on the dose 
mitigation capability. The condition does not make the design basis 
accident any more probable. The safety function can still be 
achieved assuming no single failure during the AOT should a low 
probability DBA [design-basis accident] occur. Therefore, the 
extension of the AOT for the loss of two cooling trains to the same 
AOT as that for the loss of one train impacting the dose mitigation 
function does not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2010.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' to add 
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ as an approved fuel rod cladding material, and TS 
6.9.1.6, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add a Westinghouse 
topical report to the analytical methods used to determine the core 
operating limits. This change is consistent with use of Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\ for fuel rod cladding material as described in Addendum 1-A 
to Westinghouse topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, 
``Optimized ZIRLO\TM\.''
    STP Nuclear Operating Company has also requested an exemption from 
the provisions of 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency 
core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors,'' and 
Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' to allow fuel 
rods with Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ cladding to be used in core reloads.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed Technical Specification change is to add Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\ to the allowable or approved cladding materials to be used 
at the South Texas Project. Adding Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ cladding 
material does not increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Westinghouse topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, 
Addendum 1-A ``Optimized ZIRLO\TM\,'' July 2006, provides the 
details and results of material testing of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ 
compared to standard ZIRLO\TM\ as well as the material properties to 
be used in various models and methodologies when analyzing Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\. As the nuclear industry pursues longer operating cycles 
with increased fuel discharge burnup and fuel duty, the corrosion 
performance requirements for the nuclear fuel cladding become more 
demanding. Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ was developed to meet these needs and 
provides a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining the benefits of 
mechanical strength and resistance to accelerated corrosion from 
abnormal chemistry conditions. In addition, fuel rod internal 
pressures (resulting from the increased fuel duty, use of integral 
fuel burnable absorbers, and corrosion/temperature feedback effects) 
have become more limiting with respect to fuel rod design criteria. 
Reducing the associated corrosion buildup and thus minimizing 
temperature feedback effects, provides additional margin to the fuel 
rod internal pressure design criterion. Therefore, adding Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\ to the approved fuel rod cladding materials does not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The NRC allows Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ to be used as fuel cladding 
material in Westinghouse-fueled reactors provided that licensees 
ensure compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth 
within NRC Safety Evaluation for the topical report. The conditions 
and limitations are the current requirements and confirmation of 
these conditions is required as part of the core reload process.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ provides a reduced fuel cladding corrosion 
rate while maintaining the benefits of mechanical strength and 
resistance to accelerated corrosion from abnormal chemistry 
conditions. The fuel rod design bases are established to satisfy the 
general and specific safety criteria addressed in UFSAR [Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15, Accident Analyses and in 
Technical Specifications. Fuel rods are designed to prevent 
excessive fuel temperatures, excessive internal rod gas pressures 
due to fission gas releases, and excessive cladding stresses and 
strains. WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A ``Optimized 
ZIRLO \TM\,'' July 2006, provides the details and results of 
material testing of Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ compared to standard ZIRLO 
\TM\ as well as the material properties to be used in various models 
and methodologies when analyzing Optimized ZIRLO \TM\. The original 
design-basis requirements are maintained. Therefore, the change in 
material does not create the possibility of an accident or 
malfunction not previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The cladding material used in the fuel rods is designed and 
tested to prevent excessive fuel temperatures, excessive internal 
rod gas pressure due to fission gas releases, and excessive cladding 
stresses and strains. Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ was developed to meet 
these needs and provides a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining 
the benefits of mechanical strength and resistance to accelerated 
corrosion from abnormal chemistry conditions. Westinghouse topical 
report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, ``Optimized ZIRLO \TM\,'' 
July 2006, provides the details and results of material testing of 
Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ compared to standard ZIRLO \TM\ as well as the 
material properties to be used in various models and methodologies 
when analyzing Optimized ZIRLO \TM\. The NRC approved use of 
Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ fuel cladding material as detailed in the 
Safety Evaluation. The original design-basis requirements are 
maintained.
    The change in material does not significantly reduce margin 
required to preclude or reduce the effects of an accident or 
malfunction previously evaluated in the UFSAR.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of

[[Page 18805]]

10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the request for amendments involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ccbca8bee2bea9bfa3b9beafa98ca2beafe2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcccd8ce92ced9cfd3c9cedfd9fcd2cedf92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Calvert County, Maryland

    Date of application for amendment: October 4, 2010, as supplemented 
by letter dated December 9, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment will revise Technical 
Specification 5.5.16, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to 
allow a one-time 5-year extension of the containment Integrated leak 
rate test (CILRT) interval from 10 to 15 years. This will require the 
licensee to perform its next CILRT no later than May 1, 2016.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
45 days.
    Amendment No.: 274.
    Renewed License No. DPR-69: Amendment revised the License and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (76 FR 
1646). The letter dated December 9, 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 March 22, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application of amendments: March 17, 2010, as supplemented 
January 14, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF)--425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 
Licensee Control--Risk Informed TSTF Initiative 5b''. When implemented, 
TSTF-425 Revision 3 relocates specific periodic frequencies of TSs 
surveillances to a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program, and will provide requirements for the new 
program in the Administrative Controls section of TSs.
    Date of Issuance: March 21, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-372, Unit 2-374, and Unit 3-373.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (75 
FR 54393). The supplement dated January 14, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2010, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 14, 2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' by deleting channel check Surveillance Requirement 
3.3.6.1.1 from TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment Isolation 
Instrumentation,'' for the traversing in-core probe (TIP) isolation 
instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: March 18, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 220.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR 
30444). The supplemental letter dated January 14, 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 March 18, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 18806]]

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 June 8 and August 12, 2010, and January 4 and March 7, 
2011.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment added valve SI-4052A 
(Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL) 2 Shutdown Cooling (SDC) suction inside 
containment bypass isolation) and valve SI-4052B (RCL 1 SDC suction 
inside containment bypass isolation) to Technical Specification Table 
3.4-1, ``Reactor Coolant System Pressure Isolation Valves.'' This 
bypass line equalizes the SDC system pressure downstream of valve SI-
405A (RCL 2 SDC suction inside containment isolation) and valve SI-405B 
(RCL 1 SDC suction inside containment isolation) in order to minimize 
the pressure transient in the system when valves SI-405A(B) are opened.
    Date of issuance: March 23, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to Mode 4 following refueling outage 17.
    Amendment No.: 233.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 
20633). The supplemental letters dated June 8 and August 12, 2010, and 
January 4 and March 7, 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 March 23, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: March 18, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the NMP1 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for snubbers by removing TS \3/4\.6.4, 
``Shock Suppressors (Snubbers),'' relocating these requirements to a 
licensee-controlled document, and adding a new limiting condition for 
operation, LCO 3.0.8, related to snubbers. In addition, the TS Table of 
Contents is revised to reflect these changes. The addition of LCO 3.0.8 
is consistent with the industry Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF 372-A, Revision 4, ``Addition of LCO 3.0.8, 
Inoperability of Snubbers.'' A notice of the TSTF-372-A, Revision 4 TS 
improvement was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 
23252) as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.
    Date of issuance: March 10, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment No.: 207.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: The amendment 
revises the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR 
39979).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 10, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: March 22, 2010.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the NMP1 
Technical Specifications (TSs) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.3.7.b. 
by modifying the frequency of this SR from ``at least once per 
operating cycle'' to ``following maintenance that could result in 
nozzle blockage.'' Additionally, the SR is revised to be more 
reflective of the Standard TS SR by deleting references to the type of 
test (e.g., air) performed and deleting references to the spray 
headers.
    Date of issuance: March 16, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment No.: 208.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: The amendment 
revises the License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR 
39980).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendments: March 23, 2010, as supplemented 
on November 19, 2010, January 31, 2011, and February 23, 2011.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify 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: March 21, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 299 and 282.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments 
revised the TSs and the Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR 
33843). The letters dated November 19, 2010, January 31, 2011, and 
February 23, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: November 23, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' 
to exclude portions of the tube below the top of the SG tubesheet from 
periodic SG tube inspection for Unit 1 during Refueling Outage 16 and 
the subsequent operating cycle and for Unit 2 during Refueling Outage 
15 and the subsequent operating cycle. In addition, this amendment 
revised TS 5.6.10, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to 
remove the reference to previous interim alternate repair criteria and 
provide reporting requirements specific to the temporary alternate 
repair criteria.
    Date of issuance: March 14, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-160 and Unit 2-142.

[[Page 18807]]

    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 4, 2011 (76 FR 
388).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2010, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 5, 2010.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments eliminated the 
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system design criterion for diversity among 
the three Reactor Coolant System pressure transmitters that generate 
interlocks for three series-pairs of RHR suction isolation valves. The 
change allows similarly qualified pressure transmitters to be used in 
more than one RHR train as necessary regardless of manufacturer of the 
transmitters. The revision is incorporated in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report for South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2011.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-194; Unit 2-182.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (75 
FR 57528). The supplemental letter dated October 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2011.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd 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. 2011-7740 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>