Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [NRC-2010-0055]

## 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 January 28, 2010, to February 10, 2010. The last biweekly notice was published on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6408).

## 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                           ( print page 8140)                        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, Rulemaking and Directives Branch (RDB), 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 RDB at 301-492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.                

                    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​doc-collections/​cfr/​.*                     If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.                

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.

If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, 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.                          ( print page 8141)    

                    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 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 EIE, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at                     *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 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                     *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov,*                     or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.                

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

                    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at                     *http://ehd.nrc.gov/​EHD_​Proceeding/​home.asp,*                     unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.                

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).

                    For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 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.*

## Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

*Date of amendment request:*                     December 16, 2009.                

*Description of amendment request:*                     The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specifications (TS) Section 5.6.5, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),” to replace the existing                           ( print page 8142)                        reference for the large break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analysis methodology with a reference to WCAP-16009-P-A, “Realistic Large Break LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using Automated Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM).”                

*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 revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used for establishing core operating limits. Accident analyses are not accident initiators; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident. The analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46, “Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light water nuclear power reactors,” were met. Large break LOCA analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are met; thus, this change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. No physical changes to the plant are associated with the proposed change.

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 revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used for establishing core operating limits. There are no physical changes being made to the plant as a result of using the Westinghouse ASTRUM analysis methodology in WCAP-16009-P-A for performance of the large break LOCA analyses. Large break LOCA analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are met. No new modes of plant operation are being introduced. The configuration, operation, and accident response of the structures or components are unchanged by use of the new analysis methodology. Analyses of transient events have confirmed that no transient event results in a new sequence of events that could lead to a new accident scenario. The parameters assumed in the analyses are within the design limits of existing plant equipment.

In addition, employing the Westinghouse ASTRUM large break LOCA analysis methodology does not create any new failure modes that could lead to a different kind of accident. The design of systems remains unchanged and no new equipment or systems have been installed which could potentially introduce new failure modes or accident sequences. No changes have been made to instrumentation actuation setpoints. Adding the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in TS Section 5.6.5.b is an administrative change that does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used for establishing core operating limits. 

The analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated that the applicable acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46 are met. Margins of safety for large break LOCAs include quantitative limits for fuel performance established in 10 CFR 50.46. These acceptance criteria are not being changed by this proposed new methodology. Large break LOCA analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are met; thus, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

*Attorney for licensee:*                     Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.                

## Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

*Date of amendment request:*                     December 17, 2009.                

*Description of amendment request:*                     The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification 3.1.2, “Reactivity Anomalies,” to allow a change in the method of calculating core reactivity for the purpose of performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance. The surveillance is currently determined by a comparison of predicted to actual control rod density. The proposed change would allow performance of the surveillance by comparison of predicted to measured (or monitored) core reactivity. The proposed change would not modify the frequency of the surveillance requirement (SR).                

*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 proposed Technical Specifications change does not affect any plant systems, structures, or components designed for the prevention or mitigation of previously evaluated accidents. The amendment would only change how the reactivity anomaly check is performed. Verifying that the core reactivity is consistent with predicted values ensures that accident and transient safety analyses remain valid. This amendment changes the LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 requirements such that, rather than performing the check by comparing predicted to actual control rod density, the check is performed by a direct comparison of keff. Present day on-line core monitoring systems, such as the one in use at Plant Hatch, are capable of performing the direct measurement of reactivity.                    

Therefore, since the reactivity anomaly check will continue to be performed by a viable method, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of a previously evaluated accident.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

Response: No.

This Technical Specifications amendment request does not involve any changes to the operation, testing, or maintenance of any safety-related, or otherwise important to safety, system. All important to safety systems will continue to be operated, surveillances performed, and maintained within their design bases. The proposed changes to the reactivity anomaly LCO 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 will only provide a new, more efficient method of detecting an unexpected change in core reactivity.

                        Since all systems continue to be operated within their design bases, no new failure modes are introduced and the possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created.                              ( print page 8143)    

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

                        This proposed Technical Specifications amendment proposes to change the LCO 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 method for performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance from a comparison of predicted to actual control rod density to a comparison of predicted to actual keff                        . The direct comparison of keff                         provides a technically superior method of calculating any differences in the expected core reactivity. The reactivity anomaly check will continue to be performed at the same frequency as is currently required by the Tech Specs [Technical Specifications], only the method of performing the check will be changed. Consequently, core reactivity assumptions made in safety analyses will continue to be adequately verified.                    

The proposed amendment does not therefore 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:*                     Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216.                

*NRC Branch Chief:*                     Gloria Kulesa.                

## Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

                    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     as indicated.                

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

                    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site,                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html.*                     If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to                     *pdr.resource@nrc.gov.*

## 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:*                     January 31, 2008, as supplemented by letters dated April 3 and 29, 2008; May 15 and 28, 2008; September 30, 2008; October 7, 16, 23, and 28, 2008; November 6, 19, and 25, 2008; December 22, 2008; February 27, 2009; March 6, 2009; April 3 (2 separate letters), and April 30, 2009; June 19, 2009; August 10, 2009; November 5 and 19, 2009; and December 17, 2009.                

*Brief description of amendments:*                     The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and approved a change to the licensee's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report associated with the acceptance of the new reactor protective system and engineered safeguard protective system digital upgrade.                

*Date of Issuance:*                     January 28, 2010.                

*Effective date:*                     As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to the installation of the reactor protective system and engineered safeguard protective system digital upgrade.                

*Amendment Nos.:*                     366, 368, and 367.                

*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:*                     December 3, 2008 (73 FR 73663).                

The supplements dated April 3 and 29, 2008; May 15 and 28, 2008; September 30, 2008; October 7, 16, 23, and 28, 2008; November 6, 19, and 25, 2008; December 22, 2008; February 27, 2009; March 6, 2009; April 3 (2 separate letters), and April 30, 2009; June 19, 2009; August 10, 2009; November 5 and 19, 2009; and December 17, 2009; 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 January 28, 2010.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

## Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas

*Date of amendment request:*                     February 16, 2009.                

*Brief description of amendment:*                     The amendment modified Technical Specification 5.5.16, “Reactor Building Leakage Rate Testing Program,” which currently contains reactor building leak rate criteria for overall Type A, B, and C testing, but does not specify criteria for Type B air lock leakage testing. The amendment added criteria for overall air lock leakage testing and to adopt a low pressure test method relevant to the air lock door seals. The change is consistent with NUREG-1430, Revision 3.1, “Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for Babcock & Wilcox Plants.”                

*Date of issuance:*                     February 1, 2010.                

*Effective date:*                     As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance.                

*Amendment No.:*                     242.                

*Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51:*                     Amendment revised the Technical Specifications/license.                

*Date of initial notice in Federal Register:*                     April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18253).                

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 1, 2010.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

## Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

*Date of application for amendments:*                     July 30, 2009, as supplemented on December 29, 2009.                          ( print page 8144)    

*Brief description of amendments:*                     Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.6.3.1, “Containment Atmosphere Dilution (CAD) System,” is deleted to modify containment combustible gas control requirements as permitted by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.44 (10 CFR 50.44). 10 CFR 50.44 was revised on September 16, 2003, as noticed in the Federal Register (68 FR 54123). The TSs are revised consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 478, Revision 2, “BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Technical Specification Changes that Implement the Revised Rule for Combustible Gas Control.”                

*Date of issuance:*                     January 28, 2010.                

*Effective date:*                     As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance.                

*Amendment Nos.:*                     274 and 278.                

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.

*Date of initial notice in**Federal Register:*                     October 6, 2009, (74 FR 51331).                

The supplement dated December 29, 2009, clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2010.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

## Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida

*Date of application for amendment:*                     February 26, 2009, and supplemented by letter dated May 29, 2009.                

*Brief description of amendment:*                     The amendment allows adopting a new methodology, developed for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) by AREVA NP, to analyze the rod ejection accident under extended power uprate conditions. The CR-3 Improved Technical Specifications Section 5.6.2.18, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),” would be revised to add ANP-2788P, “Crystal River 3 Rod Ejection Accident Methodology Report,” to the list of approved methods used in developing the COLR. In addition, this amendment would delete Operating License Condition 2.C.(12) that identified topical reports BAW-10164P-A, Revision 4, and BAW-1 0241 P, Revision 0, that were used in developing COLR for Cycle 14. These topical reports were subsequently incorporated into BAW-10179P-A, “Safety Criteria Methodology for Acceptable Cycle Reload Analysis.”                

*Date of issuance:*                     January 28, 2010.                

*Effective date:*                     As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented during Refuel 17 that is scheduled for fall of 2011.                

*Amendment No.*                     237.                

*Facility Operating License No. DPR-72:*                     Amendment revises the facility operating license and the technical specifications.                

*Date of initial notice in Federal Register:*                     May 12, 2009 (74 FR 22179).                

                    The supplement dated May 29, 2009, 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 January 28, 2010.

*No significant hazards consideration comments received:*                     No.                

## Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

*Date of application for amendments:*                     April 21, 2009, as supplemented on September 8, 2009, October 9, 2009, and January 26, 2010 (TSC 07-05).                

*Brief description of amendments:*                     The proposed amendments revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) and upgraded the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) requirements to be more consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications—Westinghouse Plants.” The upgrade revised Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 TS Section 3/4.5.2, “ECCS Subsystems—Tavg                     Greater Than or Equal to 350 °F,” TS Section 3/4.5.3, “ECCS Subsystems—Tavg                     Less Than 350 °F,” and the corresponding surveillance requirements (SRs) that would resolve an inconsistency between SR 4.5.2.f and plant safety analyses.                

*Date of issuance:*                     January 28, 2010.                

*Effective date:*                     As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.                

*Amendment Nos.:*                     326 and 319.                

*Facility Operating License No. DPR-77 and DPR-79:*                     Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.                

*Date of initial notice in Federal Register:*                     June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28580).                

The supplement letters dated September 8, 2009, October 9, 2009, and January 26, 2010, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2010.

*No significant hazards consideration comments received:*                     No.                

## Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

*Date of application for amendments:*                     October 20, 2009.                

*Brief description of amendments:*                     The amendments deleted paragraph g of Technical Specification (TS) 6.2.2, “Facility Staff,” to eliminate working-hour restrictions in the TS, as similar requirements are sufficiently imposed by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 26, Subpart I. This change is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-511, Revision 0, “Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.”                

*Date of issuance:*                     February 2, 2010.                

*Effective date:*                     As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.                

*Amendment Nos.:*                     327 and 320.                

*Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79:*                     Amendments revised the License and TSs.                

*Date of initial notice in Federal Register:*                     December 1, 2009 (74 FR 62837).                

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 2, 2010.

*No significant hazards consideration comments received:*                     No.                

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

                    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the                           ( print page 8145)                        standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.                

Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.

                    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a                     **Federal Register**                     notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments.                

In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.

Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License, 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. 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 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.*

                    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site,                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​doc-collections/​cfr/​.*                     If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to                     *pdr.resource@nrc.gov.*                     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 petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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.[1]       ( print page 8146)                        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 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.                

Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups:

                    1.                     *Technical*                    —primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the applications.                

                    2.                     *Environmental*                    —primarily concerns/issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the applications.                

                    3.                     *Miscellaneous*                    —does not fall into one of the categories outlined above.                

As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of another sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring requestor/petitioner shall act as the representative with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring requestor/petitioner a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.

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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.

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, which the NRC promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.

                    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the requestor/petitioner must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at                     *hearing.docket@nrc.gov*                    , or by calling (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/or (2) creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the requestor/petitioner (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM                     to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM                     is free and is available at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals/​install-viewer.html.*                     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.*

                    Once a requestor/petitioner has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it 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 filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE 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 EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.                

                    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​site-help/​e-submittals.html*, by e-mail at                     *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov*, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.                

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, 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.

Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).

                    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at                     *http://ehd.nrc.gov/​EHD_​Proceeding/​home.asp,*                     unless excluded pursuant to an order of                           ( print page 8147)                        the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a 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.                

## Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, Michigan

*Date of amendment request:*                     January 24, 2010.                

*Description of amendment request:*                     The amendment revised Technical Specification 3.6.9, “Distributed Ignition System (DIS),” to allow Train B of the DIS to be considered operable with two inoperable ignitors. The current technical specifications permit no more than one inoperable ignitor per train for maintaining operability. The proposed technical specification revision is applicable until the fall 2010 refueling outage, or until the unit enters a mode which allows replacement of the affected ignitors without exposing personnel to significant radiation and safety hazards.                

*Date of issuance:*                     February 4, 2010.                

*Effective date:*                     As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 5 days.                

*Amendment No.:*                     294.                

*Facility Operating License No. DPR-74:*                     Amendment revised the Technical Specifications and License.                

*Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC):*                     Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was published in                     *The Herald-Palladium*                     newspaper, located in the City of St. Joseph, Berrien County, Michigan, on January 29 and 30, 2010. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received.                

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated February 4, 2010.

*Attorney for licensee:*                     Mr. James M. Petro, Senior Legal Counsel, American Electric Power, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.                

*NRC Branch Chief:*                     Robert J. Pascarelli.                

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 2010.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph G. Giitter,

Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

# Footnotes

1.                             To the extent that the applications contain attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly available because they are asserted to                                                 contain safeguards or proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a protective order.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2010-3357 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P