Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52699 

of byproduct material in certain in vitro 

clinical or laboratory tests. 

5. The number of annual respondents: 

87 (7 NRC licensees + 80 Agreement 

State licensees). 

6. The number of hours needed 

annually to complete the requirement or 

request: 12.87 hours (1 hour for NRC 

licensees + 10.7 hours for Agreement 

State licensees + 1.17 hours 

recordkeeping). 

7. Abstract: Section 31.11 of 10 CFR 

establishes a general license authorizing 

any physician, clinical laboratory, 

veterinarian in the practice of veterinary 

medicine, or hospital to possess certain 

small quantities of byproduct material 

for in vitro clinical or laboratory tests 

not involving the internal or external 

administration of the byproduct 

material or the radiation there from to 

human beings or animals. Possession of 

byproduct material under 10 CFR 31.11 

is not authorized until the physician, 

clinical laboratory, veterinarian in the 

practice of veterinary medicine, or 

hospital has filed NRC Form 483 and 

received from the Commission a 

validated copy of NRC Form 483 with 

a registration number. 

Submit, by October 24, 2011, 

comments that address the following 

questions: 

1. Is the proposed collection of 

information necessary for the NRC to 

properly perform its functions? Does the 

information have practical utility? 

2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

information collection be minimized, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology? 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents, including the draft 

supporting statement, at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB 

clearance requests are available at the 

NRC Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/ 

public-involve/doc-comment/omb/ 

index.html. The document will be 

available on the NRC home page site for 

60 days after the signature date of this 

notice. Comments submitted in writing 

or in electronic form will be made 

available for public inspection. Because 

your comments will not be edited to 

remove any identifying or contact 

information, the NRC cautions you 

against including any information in 

your submission that you do not want 

to be publicly disclosed. Comments 

submitted should reference Docket No. 

NRC–2011–0181. You may submit your 

comments by any of the following 

methods: Electronic comments: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket No. NRC–2011–0181. Mail 

comments to NRC Clearance Officer, 

Tremaine Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Direct 

questions about the information 

collection requirements to the NRC 

Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell 

(T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, by telephone at 301–415–6258, or 

by e-mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day 

of August, 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tremaine Donnell, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21433 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0187] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

Background 

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

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

Commission (the Commission or NRC) 

is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from July 28, 

2011, to August 10, 2011. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

August 9, 2011 (76 FR 48908). 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0187 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

You may submit comments by any 

one of the following methods. 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0187. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch 

(RADB), Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: TWB–05–B01M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

• Fax comments to: RADB at 301– 

492–3446. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this notice using 

the following methods: 

• NRC’s Public Document Room 

(PDR): The public may examine and 

have copied, for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room 

O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): Publicly available documents 

created or received at the NRC are 

accessible electronically through 

ADAMS in the NRC Library at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this page, the public can gain 

entry into ADAMS, which provides text 

and image files of the NRC’s public 

documents. If you do not have access to 

ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: 

Public comments and supporting 

materials related to this notice can be 

found at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching on Docket ID: NRC–2011– 

0187. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, 

this means that operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example, 

in derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

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 NRC’s PDR, located at 

One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC 

regulations are accessible electronically 

from the NRC Library on the NRC Web 

site at 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 EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the Internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52701 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

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

apply-certificates.html. System 

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

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. 

Further information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

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

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

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

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Meta System Help Desk is available 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by 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. Nontimely filings will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the presiding 

officer that the petition or request 

should be granted or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 

10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

license amendment application, see the 

application for amendment which is 

available for public inspection at the 

NRC’s PDR, located at One White Flint 

North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 

20852. Publicly available documents 

created or received at the NRC are 

accessible electronically through 

ADAMS in the NRC Library at 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. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: April 13, 

2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the Technical Specifications 

(TSs) as a result of a revised Fuel 

Handling Accident analysis. The new 

analysis determined that the current TSs 

may not be conservative for all 

scenarios. The proposed amendment 

would provide new applicability and/or 

action language in the TSs that includes 

load movements over irradiated fuel 

assemblies. Specifically, the amendment 

would modify the following TSs: TS 

3.3.3.1 (Radiation Monitoring 

Instrumentation); TS 3.7.6.1 (Control 

Room Emergency Air Filtration System); 

TS 3.7.6.3 (Control Room Air 

Temperature—Operating); TS 3.7.6.4 

(Control Room Air Temperature— 

Shutdown); TS 3.8.1.2 (A.C. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

[Alternating Current] Sources— 

Shutdown); TS 3.8.2.2 (DC Sources 

[Direct Current]—Shutdown); TS 3.8.3.2 

(On Site Power Distribution— 

Shutdown); TS 3.9.3 (Decay Time); TS 

3.9.4 (Containment Building 

Penetrations); and TS 3.9.7 (Crane 

Travel—Fuel Handling Building). 

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. 

This proposed change revises Technical 

Specifications applicability wording 

regarding the movement of fuel assemblies in 

containment and the fuel storage pool to 

include load movements over irradiated fuel 

assemblies. The proposed applicability is 

more comprehensive than the current 

Applicability. This change was driven by an 

analysis change and was not due to fuel 

handling equipment or fuel movement 

methods. Expanding the applicability of the 

relevant Technical Specifications is 

necessary to account for updated fuel drop 

analyses which demonstrate that the 

impacted spent fuel assemblies may be 

damaged. 

Consequently, dropping of a non-irradiated 

fuel assembly, dummy fuel assembly, or 

other load could result in a Fuel Handling 

Accident that has radiological consequences. 

Changing the applicability of the relevant 

Technical Specifications does not affect the 

probability of a Fuel Handling Accident. The 

expanded applicability provides assurance 

that equipment designed to mitigate a Fuel 

Handling Accident is capable of performing 

its specified safety function. 

The dose consequences due to failure of 

two assemblies remain within the Regulatory 

Guide 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67 acceptance 

criteria limits. The Exclusion Area Boundary 

(EAB), Low Population Zone (LPZ), and Main 

Control Room (MCR) dose results and 

associated regulatory limits are presented 

below. 

New 

analysis 

Regulatory 

guide 

1.183 

limit 

10 CFR 

50.67 

limit 

EAB ....... 4.56 rem 

TEDE.

<6.3 rem 

TEDE.

<25 rem 

TEDE. 

LPZ ........ 0.70 rem 

TEDE.

<6.3 rem 

TEDE.

<25 rem 

TEDE. 

MCR ...... 0.824 

rem 

TEDE.

<5 rem 

TEDE.

<5 rem 

TEDE. 

Consequently, this 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 revised spent fuel handling analyses 

demonstrate that the impacted fuel 

assemblies may be damaged as the result of 

a dropped fuel assembly, dummy assembly, 

or load. The existing Technical 

Specifications regarding movement of fuel 

assemblies are not applicable for movement 

of non-irradiated fuel assemblies or other 

loads. A drop of these loads could cause 

radiological consequences during periods 

when the equipment required to mitigate 

those consequences is not required to be 

OPERABLE in accordance with the existing 

Technical Specifications. 

The proposed changes to the Technical 

Specifications applicability language 

regarding the movement of these loads in 

containment and the fuel storage pool ensure 

that Limiting Conditions of Operation and 

appropriate Required Actions for required 

equipment are in effect during fuel 

movement. This provides assurance that the 

Fuel Handling Accident will remain within 

the initial assumptions of accident analyses. 

Consequently, there is no possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident due to this 

change. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed Technical Specifications 

change will not affect protection criterion for 

plant equipment and will not reduce the 

margin of safety. By extending the 

Applicability to the movement of nonirradiated fuel assemblies, the current margin 

of safety is maintained. 

Consequently, there is no significant 

reduction in a margin of safety due to this 

change. 

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: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Council— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

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: June 2, 

2011, as supplemented by letter dated 

August 1, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

approve revision to the South Texas 

Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Fire 

Protection Program related to the 

alternate shutdown capability. 

Specifically, STP Nuclear Operating 

Company (STPNOC) proposes to credit 

the following manual operator actions 

in the control room prior to evacuation 

due to a fire for meeting the alternate 

shutdown capability: 

• Main steam line isolation. 

• Closing the pressurizer poweroperated relief valves block valves. 

• Securing all reactor coolant pumps. 

• Feedwater isolation. 

• Securing the startup feedwater 

pump. 

• Letdown isolation. 

• Securing the charging pumps. 

In addition, STPNOC proposes to 

credit the automatic trip of the main 

turbine upon the initiation of a manual 

reactor trip for meeting the alternate 

shutdown capability. A thermalhydraulic analysis will demonstrate that 

these operations will ensure that the 

reactor coolant system (RCS) process 

variables remain within those values 

predicted for a loss of normal 

alternating current (a-c) power, as 

required by Section III.L.1 of Appendix 

R of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) part 50. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The design function of structures, systems 

and component are not impacted by the 

proposed change. The proposed change 

involves crediting operations in the control 

room prior to evacuation in the event of a fire 

in order to meet safe shutdown performance 

criteria. The proposed action will not initiate 

an event. The proposed actions do not 

increase the probability of occurrence of a 

fire or any other accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed operations are feasible and 

reliable and demonstrate that the unit can be 

safely shutdown in the event of a fire. No 

significant consequences result from the 

performance of the proposed operations. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The design function of structures, systems 

and component are not impacted by the 

proposed amendment. The proposed change 

involves operations in response to a fire. 

They do not involve new failure mechanisms 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52703 

or malfunctions that can initiate a new 

accident. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Thermal-hydraulic analysis demonstrates 

that the proposed operations to be performed 

in the control room will ensure that the RCS 

process variables remain within those values 

predicted for a loss of normal a-c power, as 

required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section 

III.L.1. The analysis demonstrates that a 

single spurious operation before control of 

the plant is achieved through the alternative 

or dedicated shutdown system will not 

adversely impact the results of the analysis. 

After control of the plant is achieved by the 

alternative or dedicated shutdown system, 

circuits subjected to fire-induced circuit 

failures are isolated from the control stations 

such that the safe shutdown operations will 

not be compromised. 

The need to perform the proposed 

operations can be readily diagnosed and the 

operations can be performed in rapid 

succession by control room operators at their 

normal control station. The actions are 

straightforward and familiar to the operators. 

The actions have been verified that they can 

be performed through demonstration. The 

operations are backed up outside the control 

room such that assurance exists they should 

not be negated by subsequent spurious 

actuation signals from a postulated fire. 

The automatic turbine trip action can 

reasonably be assumed to occur with the 

credited manual reactor trip action that is 

part of the current licensing basis. 

Considerable defense-in-depth features 

exist in Fire Area 1 [control room is part of 

Fire Area 1] such that it is extremely unlikely 

that a fire would result in evacuation of the 

control room. 

The proposed operations are feasible and 

reliable and demonstrate that the unit can be 

safely shutdown in the event of a fire. The 

operations ensure that performance goals of 

Appendix R, Section III.L.2 are met. The 

achievement of these goals provide adequate 

margin from challenging any safety limits. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the standards of 

10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, 

the NRC staff proposes to determine that 

the request for amendments involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: A. H. 

Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 

Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton 

County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: June 17, 

2011 (TS–SQN–2011–07). 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the licensing basis and the Technical 

Specifications to permit the use of a 

more robust AREVA Advanced W17 

high thermal performance (HTP) fuel at 

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 

and 2. This new fuel has been selected 

to address fuel assembly distortion and 

its resultant fuel handling issues. The 

proposed AREVA Advanced W17 HTP 

fuel assembly design consists of 

standard uranium dioxide fuel pellets 

with gadolinium oxide burnable poison 

and M5TM cladding. The new fuel 

design ensures mechanical 

compatibility with the existing fuel, 

reactor core, control rods, steam supply 

system, and fuel handling system. The 

transition from the existing fuel 

(AREVA Mark-BW) to new fuel (AREVA 

Advanced W17 HTP) is planned to 

occur over two refueling cycles for each 

SQN unit. 

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 reactor fuel and the analyses 

associated with it are not accident initiators. 

The response of the fuel to an accident is 

analyzed using conservative techniques and 

the results are compared to approved 

acceptance criteria. These evaluation results 

will show that the fuel response to an 

accident is within approved acceptance 

criteria for cores loaded with the new 

AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel and cores 

loaded with both AREVA Advanced W17 

HTP and AREVA Mark-BW fuel. Therefore, 

the change in fuel design does not affect 

accident or transient initiation or 

consequences. 

The addition of limits on DNBR [departure 

from nucleate boiling ratio] and maximum 

local fuel pin centerline temperature to 

Safety Limit Technical Specification 2.1.1 or 

the proposed change to the Safety Limit 

Technical Specification Figure 2.1–1 does 

not require any physical change to any plant 

system, structure, or component. Specifying 

DNBR and maximum local fuel pin 

centerline temperature and the change to the 

CSL [core safety limit] lines are consistent 

with the Standard Review Plan (SRP) for 

ensuring that the fuel design limits are met. 

Operations and analysis will continue to be 

in compliance with Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) regulations. The new CSL 

limits will ensure DNBR and the peak fuel 

centerline temperature is maintained for 

protecting the fuel. The addition of DNBR 

limits or fuel pin centerline temperature 

limits, or changes to the CSL lines do not 

impact the initiation or the mitigation of an 

accident. 

The proposed change Technical 

Specification Table 2.2–1 and Figure 3.2–1 

are revised to present a new loop flow and 

total core flow design limit based on the new 

AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel and the 

new steam generators (now installed for SQN 

Unit 1 and that will be installed concurrently 

with the introduction of the new Advanced 

W17 HTP fuel for SQN Unit 2). Core flow is 

not an accident initiator and does not play 

a role in accident mitigation. 

The core operating limits to be developed 

using the new methodologies will be 

established in accordance with the applicable 

limitations as documented in the appropriate 

NRC Safety Evaluation reports. The proposed 

change to add and remove various topical 

reports cited in Technical Specification 

6.9.1.14.a (including adding revision 

numbers and revision dates to current cited 

topical reports) enables the use of 

appropriate methodologies to re-analyze 

certain events. The proposed methodologies 

will ensure that the plant continues to meet 

applicable design criteria and safety analysis 

acceptance criteria. The proposed change to 

the list of NRC-approved methodologies 

listed in Technical Specification 6.9.1.14.a is 

administrative in nature and has no impact 

on any plant configuration or system 

performance relied upon to mitigate the 

consequences of an accident. The proposed 

change will update the listing of NRCapproved methodologies consistent with the 

transition to AREVA Advanced W17 HTP 

fuel. Changes to the calculated core operating 

limits may only be made using NRCapproved methods, must be consistent with 

all applicable safety analysis limits and are 

controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The 

list of methodologies in the Technical 

Specifications does not impact either the 

initiation of an accident or the mitigation of 

its consequences. 

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. 

Use of AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel in 

the SQN, Units 1 and 2, reactor cores does 

not adversely affect any fission product 

barrier, nor does it alter the safety function 

of safety systems, structures, or components, 

or their roles in accident prevention or 

mitigation. The operational characteristics of 

AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel are 

bounded by the safety analyses. The AREVA 

Advanced W17 HTP fuel design performs 

within fuel design limits and does not create 

the possibility of a new or different type of 

accident. 

The addition of limits on DNBR and 

maximum local fuel pin centerline 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

temperature to Safety Limit Technical 

Specification 2.1.1 or the proposed change to 

the Safety Limit Technical Specification 

Figure 2.1–1 does not require any physical 

change to any plant system, structure, or 

component. Specifying DNBR and maximum 

local fuel pin centerline temperature and the 

change to the CSL lines are consistent with 

the SRP for ensuring that the fuel design 

limits are met. Operations and analysis will 

continue to be in compliance with NRC 

regulations. The new CSL limits will ensure 

DNBR and the peak fuel centerline 

temperature is maintained for protecting the 

fuel. The addition of DNBR limits or fuel pin 

centerline temperature limits, or changes to 

the CSL lines do not affect any accident 

initiators that would create a new accident. 

The proposed change Technical 

Specification Table 2.2–1 and Figure 3.2–1 

are revised to present a new loop flow and 

total core flow design limit based on the new 

AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel and the 

new steam generators (now installed for 

SQN, Unit 1, and that will be installed 

concurrently with the introduction of the 

new Advanced W17 HTP fuel for SQN, Unit 

2). Core flow is not an accident initiator and 

does not play a role in accident mitigation 

and cannot create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident. 

The proposed change to the list of topical 

reports used to determine the core operating 

limits is administrative in nature and has no 

impact on any plant configuration or on 

system performance. It updates the list of 

NRC-approved topical reports used to 

develop the core operating limits. There is no 

change to the parameters within which the 

plant is normally operated. The possibility of 

a new or different accident is not created. 

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 amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Use of AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel 

does not adversely affect any fission product 

barrier, nor does it alter the safety function 

of safety systems, structures, or components, 

or their roles in accident prevention or 

mitigation. The operational characteristics of 

AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel are 

bounded by the safety analyses. The AREVA 

Advanced W17 HTP fuel design performs 

within fuel design limits. The proposed 

changes do not result in exceeding design 

basis limits. Therefore, the licensed safety 

margins are maintained. 

The addition of limits on DNBR and 

maximum local fuel pin centerline 

temperature to Safety Limit Technical 

Specification 2.1.1 or the proposed change to 

the Safety Limit Technical Specification 

Figure 2.1–1 does not require any physical 

change to any plant system, structure, or 

component. Specifying DNBR and maximum 

local fuel pin centerline temperature and the 

change to the CSL lines are consistent with 

the SRP for ensuring that the fuel design 

limits are met. Operations and analysis will 

continue to be in compliance with NRC 

regulations. The new CSL limits will ensure 

DNBR and the peak fuel centerline 

temperature is maintained for protecting the 

fuel. The addition of DNBR limits or fuel pin 

centerline temperature limits, or changes to 

the CSL lines do not impact licensed safety 

margins. 

The proposed change Technical 

Specification Table 2.2–1 and Figure 3.2–1 

are revised to present a new loop flow and 

total core flow design limit based on the new 

AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel and the 

new steam generators (now installed for SQN 

Unit 1 and that will be installed concurrently 

with the introduction of the new Advanced 

W17 HTP fuel for SQN Unit 2). The proposed 

changes to core flow are provided to ensure 

licensed safety margins are maintained. 

The proposed change to the list of topical 

reports in Technical Specification 6.9.1.14.a 

does not amend the cycle specific parameters 

presently required by the Technical 

Specifications. The individual Technical 

Specifications continue to require operation 

of the plant within the bounds of the limits 

specified in the COLR [core operating limits 

report]. The proposed change to the list of 

analytical methods referenced in the COLR is 

administrative in nature and does not impact 

the margin of safety. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West 

Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: February 

23, 2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Wolf Creek Generating Station 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.3.7, 

‘‘Control Room Emergency Ventilation 

System (CREVS) Actuation 

Instrumentation,’’ 3.3.8, ‘‘Emergency 

Exhaust System (EES) Actuation 

Instrumentation,’’ 3.7.10, ‘‘Control 

Room Emergency Ventilation System 

(CREVS),’’ 3.7.11, ‘‘Control Room Air 

Conditioning System (CRACS),’’ 3.7.13, 

‘‘Emergency Exhaust System (EES),’’ 

3.8.2, ‘‘AC [Alternating Current] 

Sources—Shutdown,’’ 3.8.5, ‘‘DC [Direct 

Current] Sources—Shutdown,’’ 3.8.8, 

‘‘Inverters—Shutdown,’’ and 3.8.10, 

‘‘Distribution Systems—Shutdown.’’ 

Specifically, the proposed amendment 

would: (1) Delete MODES 5 and 6 from 

the Limiting Condition for Operation 

(LCO) Applicability for the CREVS and 

its actuation instrumentation (TS 3.7.10 

and TS 3.3.7, respectively); (2) delete 

the Required Action from TS 3.7.10 and 

TS 3.7.11 that requires verifying that the 

OPERABLE CREVS/CRACS train is 

capable of being powered by an 

emergency power source; (3) revise TS 

3.7.13 by incorporating a 7-day 

Completion Time for restoring an 

inoperable EES train to OPERABLE 

status during shutdown conditions; (4) 

adopt NRC-approved Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change 

Traveler TSTF–36–A, Revision 4, 

‘‘Addition of LCO 3.0.3 N/A [not 

applicable] to shutdown electrical 

power specifications,’’ for TSs 3.3.8, 

3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 3.8.10; 

and (5) add a more restrictive change to 

the LCO Applicability for TSs 3.8.2, 

3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 3.8.10 such that these 

LCOs apply not only during MODES 5 

and 6, but also during the movement of 

irradiated fuel assemblies regardless of 

the MODE in which the plant is 

operating. 

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. 

Deleting MODES 5 and 6 from the LCO 

Applicability of TSs 3.3.7 and 3.7.10 does not 

significantly increase the consequences of 

any accident since it has been demonstrated 

that the radiological consequences to control 

room occupants from a waste gas decay tank 

rupture will remain much less than the 

regulatory limits with no mitigation from the 

CREVS in MODES 5 and 6. The acceptance 

criteria for this event will continue to be met. 

Incorporation of a 7-day Completion Time 

for restoring an inoperable EES train during 

shutdown conditions (i.e., during movement 

of irradiated fuel assemblies in the fuel 

building) and the deletion of Required 

Actions for verifying the availability of an 

emergency power source when a CREVS/ 

CRACS train is inoperable during the same 

conditions, are operational provisions that 

have no impact on the frequency of 

occurrence of the event for which the EES, 

CREVS and CRACS are designed to mitigate. 

These systems have no bearing on the 

occurrence of a fuel handling accident 

[(FHA)] as the systems themselves are not 

associated with any of the potential initiating 

sequences, mechanisms or occurrences— 

such as a failure of a lifting device or crane, 

or an operator error—that could cause an 

FHA. Since these systems are designed only 

to respond to an FHA as accident mitigators 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52705 

after the accident has occurred, and they 

have no bearing on the occurrence of such an 

event themselves, the proposed changes to 

the CREVS, CRACS, and EES Technical 

Specifications have no impact on the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

With respect to deleting the noted 

Required Actions in TS 3.7.10 and TS 3.7.11 

(for verifying that the OPERABLE CREVS/ 

CRACS train is capable of being powered 

from an emergency power source when one 

CREVS/CRACS train is inoperable), such a 

change does not change the LCO requirement 

for both CREVS/CRACS trains to be 

OPERABLE, nor to the LCO requirements of 

the TS requirements pertaining to electrical 

power sources/support for shutdown 

conditions. The change to the Required 

Actions would thus not be expected to have 

a significant impact on the availability of the 

CREVS and CRACS. That is, adequate 

availability may be still assumed such that 

these systems would continue to be available 

to provide their assumed function for 

limiting the dose consequences of an FHA in 

accordance with the accident analysis 

currently described in the [Updated Safety 

Analysis Report]. 

With respect to the Completion Time for an 

inoperable EES train, the consequences of a 

postulated accident are not affected by 

equipment Completion Times as long as 

adequate equipment availability is 

maintained. The proposed EES Completion 

Time is based on the Completion Time 

specified in the Standard Technical 

Specifications (STS) for which it may be 

presumed that the specified Completion 

Time is acceptable and supports adequate 

EES availability. As noted in the STS Bases, 

the 7-day Completion Time for restoring an 

inoperable EES train takes into account the 

availability of the other train. Since the STSsupport Completion Time supports adequate 

EES availability, it may be assumed that the 

EES function would be available for 

mitigation of an FHA, thus limiting offsite 

dose to within the currently calculated 

values based on the current accident 

analysis. On this basis, the consequences of 

applicable, analyzed accidents (i.e., the FHA) 

are not increased by the proposed change. 

The adoption of TSTF–36–A will not affect 

the equipment and LCOs needed to mitigate 

the consequences of a[n] FHA in the fuel 

building; however, this change will reduce 

the chances of an unnecessary plant 

shutdown due to activities in the fuel 

building that have no bearing on the 

operation of the rest of the plant and the 

reactor core inside the containment building. 

[redundant paragraph omitted] 

The changes to the shutdown electrical 

specifications will add an additional 

restriction that is consistent with the 

objective of being able to mitigate a fuel 

handling accident during all situations, 

including a full core offload, in which such 

an accident could occur. 

Overall protection system performance will 

remain within the bounds of the previously 

performed accident analyses since there are 

no design changes. All design, material, and 

construction standards that were applicable 

prior to this amendment request will be 

maintained. There will be no changes to any 

design or operating limits. 

The proposed changes will not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

adversely alter the design assumptions, 

conditions, and configuration of the facility 

or the manner in which the plant is operated 

and maintained. The proposed changes will 

not alter or prevent the ability of structures, 

systems, and components (SSCs) from 

performing their intended functions to 

mitigate the consequences of an initiating 

event within the assumed acceptance limits. 

The proposed changes do not physically 

alter safety-related systems nor affect the way 

in which safety related systems perform their 

functions. The proposed changes do not alter 

plant design or operation; therefore, these 

changes will not increase the probability of 

any accident. 

All accident analysis acceptance criteria 

will continue to be met with the proposed 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

affect the source term, containment isolation, 

or radiological release assumptions used in 

evaluating the radiological consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated. After a 

postulated release from a waste gas decay 

tank rupture no CREVS mitigation is 

required. The applicable radiological dose 

criteria will continue to be met. 

Therefore, the proposed changes will not 

increase the probability or consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

There are no proposed design changes nor 

are there any changes in the method by 

which any safety related plant SSC performs 

its specified safety function. The proposed 

changes will not affect the normal method of 

plant operation or change any operating 

parameters. Equipment performance 

necessary to fulfill safety analysis missions 

will be unaffected. The proposed changes 

will not alter any assumptions required to 

meet the safety analysis acceptance criteria. 

No new accident scenarios, transient 

precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting 

single failures will be introduced as a result 

of this amendment. There will be no adverse 

effect or challenges imposed on any safety 

related system as a result of this amendment. 

The proposed amendment will not alter the 

design or performance of the 7300 Process 

Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation 

System, or Solid State Protection System 

used in the plant protection systems. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

There will be no effect on those plant 

systems necessary to assure the 

accomplishment of protection functions. 

There will be no impact on the overpower 

limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio 

(DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor 

[ ], nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor 

[ ], loss of coolant accident peak cladding 

temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power 

density, or any other margin of safety. The 

applicable radiological dose consequence 

acceptance criteria will continue to be met. 

It has been demonstrated that the CREVS and 

its actuation instrumentation are not required 

to mitigate the control room radiological 

consequences of a waste gas decay tank 

rupture. 

The proposed changes do not eliminate 

any surveillances or alter the frequency of 

surveillances required by the Technical 

Specifications. None of the acceptance 

criteria for any accident analysis will be 

changed. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 

2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20037. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: April 22, 

2011. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the Wolf Creek Generating Station 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.3, ‘‘Unit 

Staff Qualifications,’’ by making two 

administrative changes to TS 5.3.1.1. 

Specifically, these changes will remove 

the operator license applicants’ 

education and experience eligibility 

requirements, and correct inadvertent 

omissions in previous amendments 

relative to the Licensed Operators’ and 

Senior Operators’ qualification 

requirements. 

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 is an administrative 

change to reinstate the qualification 

requirements for Licensed Operators and 

Senior Licensed Operators that were 

inadvertently eliminated through the 

issuance of Amendment No. 150 [issued 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

November 26, 2002] and Amendment No. 

159 [issued January 31, 2005], and to remove 

an unnecessary reference to a [National 

Academy for Nuclear Training] NANT 

guideline. The proposed change does not 

directly impact accidents previously 

evaluated. [Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Company’s (WCNOC’s)] licensed operator 

training program is accredited by the NANT 

and is based on a systems approach to 

training consistent with the requirements of 

10 CFR Part 55. Although licensed operator 

qualifications and training may have an 

indirect impact on accidents previously 

evaluated, the NRC considered this impact 

during the rulemaking process, and by 

promulgation of the revised 10 CFR Part 55 

rule, concluded that this impact remains 

acceptable as long as the licensed operator 

training program is certified to be accredited 

and is based on a systems approach to 

training. 

Therefore, the proposed change will not 

increase 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 is an administrative 

change to reinstate the qualification 

requirements for Licensed Operators and 

Senior Licensed Operators that were 

inadvertently eliminated through the 

issuance of Amendment No. 150 and 

Amendment No. 159, and to remove an 

unnecessary reference to a NANT guideline. 

WCNOC’s licensed operator training program 

is accredited by the National Academy for 

Nuclear Training and is based on a systems 

approach to training consistent with the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. Although 

licensed operator qualifications and training 

may have an indirect impact on accidents 

previously evaluated, the NRC considered 

this impact during the rulemaking process, 

and by promulgation of the revised 10 CFR 

Part 55 rule, concluded that this impact 

remains acceptable as long as the licensed 

operator training program is certified to be 

accredited and is based on a systems 

approach to training. 

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 is an administrative 

change to reinstate the qualification 

requirements for Licensed Operators and 

Senior Licensed Operators that were 

inadvertently eliminated through the 

issuance of Amendment No. 150 and 

Amendment No. 159, and to remove an 

unnecessary reference to a NANT guideline. 

As noted previously, WCNOC’s licensed 

operator training program is accredited and 

is based on a systems approach to training 

consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 

Part 55. Licensed operator qualifications and 

training can have an indirect impact on the 

margin of safety. However, the NRC 

considered this impact during the 

rulemaking process, and by promulgation of 

the revised 10 CFR Part 55 rule, determined 

that this impact remains acceptable when 

licensees maintain a licensed operator 

training program that is accredited and based 

on a systems approach to training. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 

2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20037. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing in 

connection with these actions was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the NRC’ Public Document Room 

(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 

Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are accessible 

electronically through the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at 

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. 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, 

and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 22, 2010, as supplemented by letter 

dated April 8, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised an element of the 

methodology used in evaluating the 

radiological consequences of design 

basis steam generator tube rupture 

(SGTR) accidents. Specifically, the 

amendment revised the Palo Verde 

Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

Section 15.6.6, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube 

Rupture,’’ to reflect a lower iodine 

spiking factor assumed for the 

coincident event Generated Iodine 

Spike (GIS) and the resulting reduction 

in the radiological consequences for the 

Limiting SGTRLOPSF [Steam Generator 

Tube Rupture with Loss of Offsite 

Power and Single Failure] Event. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: Unit 1—186; Unit 

2—186; Unit 3—186. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The 

amendment revised the Operating 

Licenses and the Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 28, 2010 (75 FR 

81669). 

The supplemental letter dated April 8, 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52707 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Carolina Power and Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, 

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1 

and 2, Brunswick County, North 

Carolina 

Carolina Power & Light Company, 

Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson 

Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington 

County, South Carolina 

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and 

Chatham Counties, North Carolina 

Florida Power Corporation, et al., 

Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 

Nuclear Generating Plant Citrus County, 

Florida 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 8, 2010, as supplemented by letters 

dated September 23 and November 30, 

2010; February 28 and April 7, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments establish a fleet Cyber 

Security Plan (CSP) in accordance with 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 73.54, 

‘‘Protection of digital computer and 

communication systems and networks,’’ 

and in conformance with the model CSP 

contained in Appendix A of Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI) document NEI 

08–09, ‘‘Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear 

Power Reactors,’’ Revision 6, dated 

April 2010. The licensees’ submittals 

included the fleet CSP for Brunswick 

Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, H. 

B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 

No. 2, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit 1, and Crystal River Unit 3 

Nuclear Generating Plant, the licensees’ 

proposed changes to the facility 

operating licenses, and a proposed CSP 

implementation schedule for each 

facility. 

The licensees’ submittals dated 

November 30, 2010, and April 7, 2011, 

supplemented the licensees’ CSP to 

address: (1) Scope of systems in 

response to the October 21, 2010, the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, 

Commission) decision; (2) records 

retention; and (3) implementation 

schedule. The licensee provided, in its 

letter dated April 7, 2011, a revised 

copy of the Carolina Power & Light 

Company and Florida Power 

Corporation, Cyber Security Plan, 

Revision 0 that incorporated all of the 

changes that the licensee had made to 

the following sections of their CSP: 

Scope and purpose, defense-in-depth 

protective strategies, document control 

and records retention and handling, and 

deviations from NEI 08–09, Revision 6. 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: The license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of their issuance. The implementation of 

the CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensees on 

April 7, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with the license amendments. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: Brunswick 1: 258, 

Brunswick 2: 286, Robinson 2: 226, 

Shearon Harris 1: 136, and Crystal River 

3: 238. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–71, DPR–62, DPR–23, and 

NPF–63; and Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–72.: Amendments changed the 

facility operating licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 

62595). 

The supplements dated September 23 

and November 30, 2010; February 28, 

2011, and the Updated No Significant 

Hazards Consideration in Enclosure 5 of 

the letter dated April 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 amendments is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 

50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 

Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 27, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 29, 2010, 

November 22, 2010, and March 30, 

2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approves the cyber security 

plan and associated implementation 

schedule, and revises Paragraph 2.E of 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–43 

for Fermi 2, to provide a license 

condition to require the licensee to fully 

implement and maintain in effect all 

provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber 

Security Plan. The proposed change is 

consistent with Nuclear Energy Institute 

(NEI) 08–09, Revision 6, Cyber Security 

Plan for Nuclear Power Reactors. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

its issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

July 27, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 29, 2010, 

November 22, 2010, and March 30, 

2011, and approved by the NRC staff 

with this license amendment. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment No.: 185. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

43: Amendment revised the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR 

76043). 

The supplemental letters contained 

clarifying information and did not 

change the initial no significant hazards 

consideration determination, and did 

not expand the scope of the original 

application. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket 

No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power Station, 

Kewaunee County, Wisconsin 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 1, 2010, as supplemented by letters 

dated January 18, 2011, March 14, 2011, 

and June 27, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Kewaunee 

licensing basis, approving the licensee 

to operate the load tap changers (LTCs) 

on two new transformers in the 

automatic mode. The LTCs are designed 

to compensate for potential offsite 

power voltage variations and will 

provide added assurance that acceptable 

voltage is maintained for safety-related 

equipment. 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 209. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–43: Amendment did not revise 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 10, 2010 (75 FR 

48374). 

The supplements dated January 18, 

2011, March 14, 2011, and June 27, 

2011, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52708 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

did not change the Commission’s 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et 

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

Station, Unit 3, New London County, 

Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: July 21, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment relocates Millstone 

Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3) 

Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.14, 

‘‘Area Temperature Monitoring,’’ and 

the associated Table 3.7–6, ‘‘Area 

Temperature Monitoring,’’ to the MPS3 

Technical Requirements Manual. 

Date of issuance: July 27, 2011. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 250. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–49: The amendment revised 

the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16007). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 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: 

July 14, 2010. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications related to the adoption of 

technical specification task force 

technical change Traveler 52, Revision 

3, to implement option B of Appendix 

J to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), part 50. 

Date of Issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 375, 377, and 376. 

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 14, 2010 (75 FR 

77909). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 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: 

June 10, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated December 18, 2009, and 

August 25, 2010. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments change the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) and authorize 

changes to the ‘‘Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report’’ (UFSAR) to allow the 

use of CASMO–4/SIMULATE–3 

methodology for application to reactor 

core designs containing low enrichment 

uranium fuel bearing lumped burnable 

and/or gadolinia integral absorbers. 

Date of Issuance: August 2, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 377, 379, and 378. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: 

Amendments revised the licenses and 

the TSs and authorized UFSAR changes. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 19, 2010 (75 FR 13314). 

The supplements dated December 15, 

2009, and August 25, 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 August 2, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Power Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina 

Duke Power Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina 

Duke Power Company, 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: 

July 28, 2010, as supplemented March 3, 

2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments approve changes to each 

station emergency plans to allow 

changes to the minimum staffing 

requirement during emergencies. 

Date of Issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Catawba 1 and 2– 

265/261. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments 

revised the licenses and emergency 

plan. 

Amendment Nos.: McGuire 1 and 2— 

263/243 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the licenses and emergency 

plan. 

Amendment Nos. Oconee 1, 2 and 3— 

376/378/377 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: 

Amendments revised the licenses and 

emergency plan. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 7, 2010 (75 FR 

54393). 

The supplement dated March 3, 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 July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: July 22, 

2010, as supplemented by letters dated 

September 23 and November 30, 2010, 

and February 15 and April 4, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approved the cyber security 

plan (CSP) and associated 

implementation schedule, and added 

new Paragraph 2.E to Facility Operating 

License No. NPF–47 to provide a license 

condition to require the licensee to fully 

implement and maintain in effect all 

provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber 

Security Plan. The proposed change is 

generally consistent with Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI) 08–09, Revision 6, 

‘‘Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power 

Reactors.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

its issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52709 

April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with this license amendment. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment No.: 171. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

47: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 

62596). 

The supplemental letters dated 

September 23 and November 30, 2010, 

and February 15 and April 4, 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 July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket Nos. 50–003, 50–247, and 50– 

286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Unit 1, 2 and 3, (IP1, IP2, and IP3), 

Westchester County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 8, 2010, as supplemented by letters 

dated February 18, April 1, and June 29, 

2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

licensee’s application for the proposed 

amendments to the Facility Operating 

Licenses (FOLs) includes: (1) The 

proposed Cyber Security Plan (CSP), (2) 

an implementation schedule, and (3) a 

proposed statement to be added to the 

existing FOL Physical Protection license 

conditions requiring Entergy to fully 

implement and maintain in effect all 

provisions of the Commission-approved 

CSP as required by 10 CFR 73.54, 

‘‘Protection of digital computer and 

communication systems and networks.’’ 

A Federal Register notice dated March 

27, 2009, issued the final rule that 

amended 10 CFR Part 73. The 

regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, establish 

the requirements for a CSP. This 

regulation specifically requires each 

licensee currently licensed to operate a 

nuclear power plant under Part 50 of 

this chapter to submit a CSP that 

satisfies the requirements of the Rule. 

Each submittal must include a proposed 

implementation schedule, and 

implementation of the licensee’s CSP 

must be consistent with the approved 

schedule. The background for this 

application is addressed by the NRC 

Notice of Availability, Federal Register 

Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR Part 73, 

Power Reactor Security Requirements, 

published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 

13926). 

Date of issuance: August 2, 2011. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of their issuance. The implementation of 

the CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

July 8, 2010, as supplemented by letters 

dated February 18, April 1, and June 29, 

2011, and approved by the NRC staff 

with these license amendments. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: 55 for IP1, 266 for 

IP2, and 243 for IP3, respectively. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

5, DPR–26, and DPR–64: The 

amendment revised the Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 

62596). 

The supplements dated February 18, 

April 1, and June 29, 2011, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: Yes. The Safety 

Evaluation dated August 2, 2011, 

provides the discussion of the 

comments received from New York 

State. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 26, 2011, supplemented by letters 

dated September 27, 2010, November 

30, 2010, February 15, 2011, and April 

4, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approves the cyber security 

plan and associated implementation 

schedule, and revises Paragraph 2.E of 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–20 

for Palisades Nuclear Plant, to provide 

a license condition to require the 

licensee to fully implement and 

maintain in effect all provisions of the 

NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan. The 

proposed change is generally consistent 

with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08– 

09, Revision 6, Cyber Security Plan for 

Nuclear Power Reactors. 

Date of issuance: July 27, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

its issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

July 26, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 27, 2010, 

November 30, 2010, February 15, 2011, 

and April 4, 2011, and approved by the 

NRC staff with this license amendment. 

All subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment No.: 243. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

20: Amendment revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR 

76044). 

The supplemental letters contained 

clarifying information and did not 

change the initial no significant hazards 

consideration determination, and did 

not expand the scope of the original 

application. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: August 

10, 2010, as supplemented by letter 

dated June 10, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.9.3, ‘‘Reactor 

Building Penetrations,’’ to allow reactor 

building flow path(s) providing direct 

access from the reactor building 

atmosphere to the outside atmosphere to 

be unisolated under administrative 

control, during movement of irradiated 

fuel assemblies. The proposed change is 

consistent with Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Technical Change 

Traveler TSTF–312, Revision 1, 

‘‘Administratively Control Containment 

Penetrations.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 10, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 245. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications/license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 5, 2010 (75 FR 61526). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52710 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

The supplemental letter dated June 

10, 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 August 10, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 19, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated June 16, 2010, October 29, 

2010, December 3, 2010, January 14, 

2011, and March 23, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

changes implement an extension of the 

Technical Specification (TS) allowed 

outage time (AOT) for the Unit 1 and 

Unit 2 Suppression Pool Cooling (SPC) 

mode of the Residual Heat Removal 

(RHR) system, the Residual Heat 

Removal Service Water (RHRSW) 

system, the Emergency Service Water 

(ESW) system, and the A.C. Sources— 

Operating (Emergency Diesel 

Generators) from 72 hours to seven (7) 

days in order to allow for repairs of the 

RHRSW system piping. The AOT 

extension would only be allowed once 

every other calendar year, for each unit, 

with the opposite unit shutdown, 

reactor vessel head removed, reactor 

cavity flooded, and certain other 

specific compensatory measures, in 

effect. 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 203 and 165. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

39 and NPF–85: These amendments 

revised the license and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27828). 

The supplements dated June 16, 2010, 

October 29, 2010, December 3, 2010, 

January 14, 2011, and March 23, 2011, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Will County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Unit 1 and 2, Ogle 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–352 and No. 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 

2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean 

County, New Jersey 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 

and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island 

Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), 

Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

November 23, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 23, September 24, 

November 18, December 21, 2010, 

March 31, May 19, and July 11, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments were submitted in 

accordance with the provisions of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) 50.4 and 10 CFR 50.90 and 

requests NRC approval of the Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) 

Cyber Security Plan (CSP), provides an 

Implementation Schedule, and adds a 

sentence to the existing Physical 

Protection license condition to require 

Exelon to fully implement and maintain 

in effect all provisions of the 

Commission approved CSP. 

Date of issuance: August 10, 2011. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of their issuance. The implementation of 

the CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

November 23, 2009 as supplemented by 

letters dated July 23, September 24, 

November 18, December 21, 2010, 

March 31, May 19, and July 11, 2011, 

and approved by the NRC staff with 

these license amendments. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: 168, 168, 175, 175, 

194, 238, 231, 203, 190, 204, 166, 280, 

281, 283, 249, 244, 275. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72, NPF–77, NPF–37, NPF–66, NPF–62, 

DPR–19, DPR–25, NPF–11, NPF–18, 

NPF–39, NPF–85, DPR–16, DPR–44, 

DPR–56, DPR–29, DPR–30, DPR–50: The 

amendments revised the Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 12, 2011 (75 FR 20379). 

The July 23, September 24, November 

18, December 21, 2010, March 31, May 

19, and July 11, 2011, supplements 

contained clarifying information and 

did not change the NRC staff’s initial 

proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 10, 

2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 

and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power 

Station, Unit 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and 2), 

Beaver County, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 22, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 28, 2010, 

November 29, 2010, February 3, 2011, 

and April 6, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments to the Renewed Facility 

Operating Licenses (FOL) include: (1) 

The proposed BVPS–1 and 2 Cyber 

Security Plan (CSP), (2) an 

implementation schedule, and (3) a 

proposed sentence to be added to the 

existing renewed FOL Physical 

Protection license condition for BVPS– 

1 and 2 requiring FirstEnergy Nuclear 

Operating Company to fully implement 

and maintain in effect all provisions of 

the Commission-approved BVPS–1 and 

2 CSP as required by Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

73.54, ‘‘Protection of digital computer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52711 

and communication systems and 

networks.’’ A Federal Register notice 

dated March 27, 2009, issued the final 

rule that amended 10 CFR Part 73. The 

regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, establish 

the requirements for a CSP. This 

regulation specifically requires each 

licensee currently licensed to operate a 

nuclear power plant under part 50 of 

this chapter to submit a CSP that 

satisfies the requirements of the Rule. 

Each submittal must include a proposed 

implementation schedule and 

implementation of the licensee’s CSP 

must be consistent with the approved 

schedule. The background for this 

application is addressed by the NRC 

Notice of Availability, Federal Register 

Notice, Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 73, 

Power Reactor Security Requirements, 

published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 

13926). 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of its issuance. The implementation of 

the CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

July 22, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 28, 2010, 

November 29, 2010, February 3, 2011, 

and April 6, 2011, and approved by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

staff with this license amendment. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: 287 for BVPS–1 

and 174 for BVPS–2. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

66 and NPF–73: The amendments 

revised the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010, 75 FR 62599. 

The supplements dated September 28, 

2010, November 29, 2010, February 3, 

2011, and April 6, 2011, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power and Light Company 

(FPL), Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, 

Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 28, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 27 and 

November 19, 2010, and April 5 and 

June 30, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment includes three parts: The 

proposed plan, an implementation 

schedule, and a sentence added to the 

existing Physical Protection license 

condition to require FPL to fully 

implement and maintain in effect all 

provisions of the Commission approved 

cyber security plan (CSP) as required by 

amended Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) part 73. The 

proposed CSP was submitted in 

accordance with 10 CFR 73.54, 

‘‘Protection of digital computer and 

communication systems and networks.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of their issuance. The implementation of 

the CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

July 28, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 27 and 

November 19, 2010, and April 5 and 

June 30, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with these license amendments. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos: Unit 3—245 and 

Unit 4—241. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments 

revised the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR 

76045). 

The supplements dated September 27 

and November 19, 2010, and April 5 

and June 30, 2011, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company 

(IandM), Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50– 

316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 19, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 28, 2010, 

November 30, 2010, and April 8, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments approve the Cyber Security 

Plan and associated implementation 

schedule, and revises License Condition 

2.D of the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses for Units 1 and 2. The 

amendments specify that the licensee 

fully implement and maintain in effect 

all provisions of the Commission 

approved CSP as required by 10 CFR 

73.54. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

April 8, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with these license amendments. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: 315 (for Unit 1) and 

299 (for Unit 2). 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

74: Amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 

62600). 

The supplemental letters contain 

clarifying information, did not change 

the scope of the license amendment 

request, did not change the NRC staff’s 

initial proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and did not expand the scope of the 

original Federal Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 14, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 27, 2010, 

November 17, 2010, April 5, 2011, and 

June 22, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approves the Cyber Security 

Plan and associated implementation 

schedule, and revises License Condition 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52712 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

2.C.(5) of the Renewed Facility 

Operating License. The amendment 

specifies that the licensee fully 

implement and maintain in effect all 

provisions of the Commission approved 

CSP, as required by 10 CFR 73.54. 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

its issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

April 5, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with this license amendment. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment No.: 278. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–49: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 9, 2010 (75 FR 

68836). 

The supplemental letters contain 

clarifying information, did not change 

the scope of the license amendment 

request, did not change the NRC staff’s 

initial proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and did not expand the scope of the 

original Federal Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin 

Date of application for amendments: 

January 27, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated August 30, 2010, and May 

3, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise Technical 

Specification 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel Oil and 

Starting Air,’’ to specify an increased 

minimum diesel fuel oil storage volume 

and associated surveillance requirement 

for the Emergency Diesel Generators. 

Date of issuance: August 4, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of the date of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 244 (for Unit 1) and 

248 (for Unit 2). 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–24 and DPR–27: Amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications and 

Renewed Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 30, 2010 (75 FR 

74096). 

The August 30, 2010, and May 3, 

2011, supplements did not change the 

NRC staff’s initial proposed finding of 

no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 4, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 

Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 20, 2010, and supplemented by 

letters dated September 24, 2010, 

November 30, 2010, February 21, 2010, 

April 1, 2011, and May 26, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approves the Cyber Security 

Plan (CSP) and associated 

implementation schedule, and revises 

License Condition 2.C.3 of the Renewed 

Facility Operating License DPR–22 for 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. 

The amendment specifies that the 

licensee fully implement and maintain 

in effect all provisions of the 

Commission approved CSP as required 

by 10 CFR 73.54. 

Date of issuance: August 2, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

its issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

April 1, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with this license amendment. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment No.: 166. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

22. Amendment revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 

62604). 

The licensee’s supplemental letters 

contained clarifying information, did 

not change the scope of the original 

license amendment request, did not 

change the NRC staff’s initial proposed 

finding of no significant hazards 

consideration determination, and did 

not expand the scope of the original 

Federal Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 20, 2010, and supplemented by 

letters dated September 24, 2010, 

November 30, 2010, February 21, 2011, 

April 1, 2011, and May 26, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments approve the Cyber Security 

Plan (CSP) and associated 

implementation schedule, and revise 

License Condition 2.C.(3) of the Facility 

Operating Licenses for each unit at 

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. 

The amendments specify that the 

licensee fully implement and maintain 

in effect all provisions of the 

Commission-approved CSP as required 

by 10 CFR 73.54. 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of their issuance. The implementation of 

the CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

April 1, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with these license amendments. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: 202 (for Unit 1) and 

189 (for Unit 2). 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

42 and DPR–60. Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 

62604). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–354, 

50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek 

Generating Station and Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Salem County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 14, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 28, 2010, April 

1, 2011, June 6, 2011, and July 6, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments approve the Cyber Security 

Plan (CSP) and associated 

implementation schedule for Hope 

Creek Generating Station and Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52713 

and 2. In addition, the amendments 

revise the existing license condition 

regarding physical protection in the 

each of the three facility operating 

licenses (FOLs) to require the licensee to 

fully implement and maintain in effect 

all provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC)-approved CSP. The 

amendment was submitted pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 73.54, which 

requires licensees currently licensed to 

operate a nuclear power plant under 10 

CFR part 50 to submit a CSP for NRC 

review and approval. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: The license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee by 

letter dated June 6, 2011, and approved 

by the NRC staff with these license 

amendments. All subsequent changes to 

the NRC-approved CSP implementation 

schedule will require prior NRC 

approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: 189, 300 and 283. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

57, DPR–70 and DPR–75: The 

amendments revised the FOLs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 

62606). 

The letters dated September 28, 2010, 

April 1, 2011, June 6, 2011, and July 6, 

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 July 28, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, 

California 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 22, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 29 and 

November 30, 2010, and March 31 and 

June 16, 2011. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments approved the cyber 

security plan (CSP) and associated 

implementation schedule, and revised 

Paragraph 2.E of Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF–10 and NPF–15, 

respectively, for San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, to 

provide a license condition to require 

the licensee to fully implement and 

maintain in effect all provisions of the 

NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan. The 

proposed change is consistent with 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08–09, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Cyber Security Plan for 

Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

March 31 and June 16, 2011, and 

approved by the NRC staff with these 

license amendments. All subsequent 

changes to the NRC-approved CSP 

implementation schedule will require 

prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 2—225; Unit 

3—218. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

10 and NPF–15: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 9, 2010 (75 FR 

68836). 

The supplemental letters dated 

September 29 and November 30, 2010, 

and March 31 and June 16, 2011, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50–348 and 

50–364, Houston County, Alabama; 

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366, 

Appling County, Georgia; Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket 

Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, Burke County, 

Georgia 

Date of amendment request: July 16, 

2010, as supplemented March 28 and 

April 11, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The amendments approve the 

licensee’s Cyber Security Plan and 

Implementation Schedule. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: These license 

amendments are effective as of the date 

of their issuance. The implementation of 

the cyber security plan (CSP), including 

key intermediate milestone dates and 

the full implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee by 

letter dated April 11, 2011, and 

approved by the NRC staff with these 

license amendments. All subsequent 

changes to the NRC-approved CSP 

implementation schedule will require 

prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.90. 

Amendment Nos: Farley 1 and 2— 

186/181; Hatch 1 and 2—265/209; 

Vogtle 1 and 2—162/144. 

Facility Operating License (Farley) 

NPF–2 and NPF–8; (Hatch) DPR–57 and 

NPF–5; (Vogtle) NPF–68 and NPF–81: 

The amendments changed the licenses 

and the technical specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20381) 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of application for amendments: 

November 23, 2009, as supplemented on 

December 18, 2009; July 23 and October 

1, 2010; April 7 and July 15, 2011 (TS– 

470). 

Description of amendment request: 

On March 27, 2009, the Federal Register 

Notice (74 FR 13926) published the final 

rule that amended Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 73, 

‘‘Physical Protection of Plants and 

Materials.’’ Specifically, the regulations 

in 10 CFR 73.54 ‘‘Protection of Digital 

Computer and Communication Systems 

and Networks,’’ establish the 

requirements for a cyber security 

program to protect digital computer and 

communication systems and networks 

against cyber attacks. The proposed 

amendment included the proposed 

Cyber Security Plan, its implementation 

schedule, and a revised Physical 

Protection license condition for Browns 

Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 to 

fully implement and maintain in effect 

all provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission approved Cyber Security 

Plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

issuance. The implementation of the 

cyber security plan (CSP), including the 

key intermediate milestone dates and 

the full implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52714 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

April 7, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with this license amendment. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—279, Unit 

2—306, and Unit 3—265. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: 

Amendments revised the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR 

76046). 

The above Federal Register notice 

was based on the supplement dated 

December 18, 2009. The supplements 

dated July 23 and October 1, 2010; April 

7 and July 15, 2011, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

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 amendment: 

November 23, 2009, as supplemented on 

December 11 and December 18, 2009; 

July 23 and October 1, 2010; April 7 and 

July 15, 2011 (TS 09–06). 

Brief description of amendment: On 

March 27, 2009, the Federal Register 

Notice (74 FR 13926) published the final 

rule that amended Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 73, 

‘‘Physical Protection of Plants and 

Materials.’’ Specifically, the regulations 

in 10 CFR 73.54 ‘‘Protection of Digital 

Computer and Communication Systems 

and Networks,’’ establish the 

requirements for a cyber security 

program to protect digital computer and 

communication systems and networks 

against cyber attacks. The proposed 

amendment included the proposed 

Cyber Security Plan, its implementation 

schedule, and a revised physical 

protection license condition for 

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 

to fully implement and maintain in 

effect all provisions of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission approved Cyber 

Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 

73.54. 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

issuance. The implementation of the 

Cyber Security Plan (CSP), including the 

key intermediate milestone dates and 

the full implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

April 7, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with this license amendment. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—329 and 

Unit 2—322. 

Facility Operating License DPR–77 

and DPR–79: Amendments revised the 

licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR 

76046). 

The above Federal Register notice 

was based on the supplement dated 

December 18, 2009. The supplements 

dated July 23 and October 1, 2010; April 

7 and July 15, 2011, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of application for amendment: 

November 25, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated April 22, May 14, August 

24, September 29, and November 4, 

2010, and February 23, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety 

Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) 

Instrumentation,’’ to provide a 24-hour 

Completion Time (CT) for restoration of 

an inoperable Balance of Plant (BOP) 

ESFAS train and extends the CTs 

associated with individual instrument 

channels in the BOP ESFAS train to 

maintain overall consistency of related 

TS actions. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 201. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

30: The amendment revised the 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27833). 

The supplemental letters dated April 

22, May 14, August 24, September 29, 

and November 4, 2010, and February 23, 

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 July 28, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 

50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 

Callaway County, Missouri 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 5, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 23, May 3, and July 

25, 2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) by relocating 

specific surveillance frequencies to a 

licensee-controlled program with the 

guidance of Nuclear Energy Institute 

(NEI) 04–10, ‘‘Risk-Informed Technical 

Specifications Initiative 5b, RiskInformed Method for Control of 

Surveillance Frequencies.’’ The 

amendment adopted NRC-approved 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF)-425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate 

Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 

Control—RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] 

Initiative 5b.’’ When implemented, 

TSTF–425 relocates most periodic 

frequencies of TS surveillances to a 

licensee-controlled program, the 

Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program (SFCP), and provides 

requirements for the new program in the 

Administrative Controls section of the 

TSs. 

Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 202. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

30: The amendment revised the 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 11, 2011 (76 FR 1649). 

The supplemental letters dated March 

23, May 3, and July 25, 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52715 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, 

Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Surry County, Virginia 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 12, 2010. 

Brief Description of amendments: 

These amendments revise the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Correct an 

error in TS 3.12.E.5, (2) delete 

duplicative requirements in TS 3.12.E.2 

and TS 3.12.E.4, (3) relocate the 

shutdown margin value in TS 3.12 and 

the TS 3.12 Basis to the Core Operating 

Limits Report (COLR), and 4) expand 

the TS 6.2 list of parameters defined in 

the COLR. 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 275 and 275. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments 

change the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28477). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated July 28, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of August 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21212 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 

ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory 

Policies and Practices; Notice of 

Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on 

Regulatory Policies and Practices will 

hold a meeting on September 7, 2011, 

Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Wednesday, September 7, 2011—1:30 

p.m. until 5:30 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will review Draft 

Final Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.93, 

‘‘Availability of Electric Power 

Sources,’’ Revision 1 and new Draft 

Final RG 1.218, ‘‘Condition Monitoring 

Techniques for Electric Cables Used in 

Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs).’’ The 

Subcommittee will hear presentations 

by and hold discussions with the NRC 

staff and other interested persons 

regarding this matter. The 

Subcommittee will gather information, 

analyze relevant issues and facts, and 

formulate proposed positions and 

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation 

by the Full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official (DFO), Mrs. Christina 

Antonescu (Telephone 301–415–6792 or 

E-mail: Christina.Antonesu@nrc.gov) 

five days prior to the meeting, if 

possible, so that appropriate 

arrangements can be made. Thirty-five 

hard copies of each presentation or 

handout should be provided to the DFO 

thirty minutes before the meeting. In 

addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be e-mailed to the 

DFO one day before the meeting. If an 

electronic copy cannot be provided 

within this timeframe, presenters 

should provide the DFO with a CD 

containing each presentation at least 

thirty minutes before the meeting. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted 

only during those portions of the 

meeting that are open to the public. 

Detailed procedures for the conduct of 

and participation in ACRS meetings 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65038– 

65039). 

Detailed meeting agendas and meeting 

transcripts are available on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/acrs. Information 

regarding topics to be discussed, 

changes to the agenda, whether the 

meeting has been canceled or 

rescheduled, and the time allotted to 

present oral statements can be obtained 

from the Web site cited above or by 

contacting the identified DFO. 

Moreover, in view of the possibility that 

the schedule for ACRS meetings may be 

adjusted by the Chairman as necessary 

to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, 

persons planning to attend should check 

with these references if such 

rescheduling would result in a major 

inconvenience. 

If attending this meeting, please 

contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 

240–888–9835) to be escorted to the 

meeting room. 

Dated: August 16, 2011. 

Cayetano Santos, 

Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21488 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 

ACRS Subcommittee on Digital 

Instrumentation and Control Systems; 

Notice of Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital 

Instrumentation and Control Systems 

(DI&C) will hold a meeting on 

September 7, 2011, Room T–2B1, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Wednesday, September 7, 2011—8:30 

a.m. until 12 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will review Draft 

Final Standard Review Plan (SRP) BTP 

7–19, Revision 6, ‘‘Guidance for 

Evaluation of Diversity on Defense-InDepth in Digital Computer-Based I&C 

Systems,’’ and other related activities on 

diversity defense-in-depth (D3). The 

Subcommittee will hear presentations 

by and hold discussions with the NRC 

staff and other interested persons 

regarding this matter. The 

Subcommittee will gather information, 

analyze relevant issues and facts, and 

formulate proposed positions and 

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation 

by the Full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official (DFO), Mrs. Christina 

Antonescu (Telephone 301–415–6792 or 

E-mail: Christina.Antonescu@nrc.gov) 

five days prior to the meeting, if 

possible, so that appropriate 

arrangements can be made. Thirty-five 

hard copies of each presentation or 

handout should be provided to the DFO 

thirty minutes before the meeting. In 

addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be e-mailed to the 

DFO one day before the meeting. If an 

electronic copy cannot be provided 

within this timeframe, presenters 

should provide the DFO with a CD 

containing each presentation at least 

thirty minutes before the meeting. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted 

only during those portions of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES