Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 26287 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice of Permit Applications Received 

Under the Antarctic Conservation Act 

of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541) 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications 

Received under the Antarctic 

Conservation Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95– 

541. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 

notice of permit applications received to 

conduct activities regulated under the 

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 

NSF has published regulations under 

the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 

45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This is the required notice 

of permit applications received. 

DATES: Interested parties are invited to 

submit written data, comments, or 

views with respect to this permit 

application by June 10, 2010. This 

application may be inspected by 

interested parties at the Permit Office, 

address below. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 

Office of Polar Programs, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nadene G. Kennedy at the above 

address or (703) 292–7405. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Science Foundation, as 

directed by the Antarctic Conservation 

Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as 

amended by the Antarctic Science, 

Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, 

has developed regulations for the 

establishment of a permit system for 

various activities in Antarctica and 

designation of certain animals and 

certain geographic areas requiring 

special protection. The regulations 

establish such a permit system to 

designate Antarctic Specially Protected 

Areas. 

The applications received are as 

follows: 

Permit Application No. 2011–003 

1. Applicant, Diana H. Wall, Natural 

Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado 

State University, 200 West Lake, Fort 

Collins, CO 80523–1499. 

Activity for Which Permit is Requested 

Enter Antarctic Specially Protected 

Areas (ASPA) and Import into the USA. 

The applicant plans to enter the Canada 

Glacier area (ASPA 131) to collect a 

number of soil and sediment samples 

that represent all microhabitats found in 

the area. The microhabitats in question 

includes barren dry soils, moist to wet 

soils, and soils and sediment associated 

with mosses, lichens and algal mats. 

The applicant will extract nematodes, 

tardigrades and rotifers from these soils 

for identification and classification. The 

collection of these samples will help to 

investigate the distribution of soil fauna 

within the McMurdo Dry Valleys and 

their influence on the ecosystem 

function, and to understand the 

implications of future climate changes. 

Location 

Canada Glacier (ASPA 131), Taylor 

Dry Valley. 

Dates 

December 2, 2010 to January 31, 2011. 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11023 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0168] 

Notice; Applications and Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses 

Involving Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Considerations and 

Containing Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information and Order 

Imposing Procedures for Access to 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

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

Commission (the Commission or NRC 

staff) is publishing this notice. The Act 

requires the Commission to 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 notice includes notices of 

amendments containing sensitive 

unclassified non-safeguards information 

(SUNSI). 

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(c), 

this means that operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example, 

in derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements and Directives Branch 

(RADB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
26288 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be faxed to the RADB at 301–492– 

3446. Documents may be examined, 

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

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR part 

2. Interested person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part002/part002- 

0309.html. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm.html. If a request for a 

hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

is filed within 60 days, 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 set forth 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, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, 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 ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a 

digital ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

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

apply-certificates.html. System 

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

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

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

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through EIE, users will be 

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

information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 26289 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

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

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, 

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, or the presiding 

officer. Participants are requested not to 

include personal privacy information, 

such as social security numbers, home 

addresses, or home phone numbers in 

their filings, unless an NRC regulation 

or other law requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 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 

amendment action, see the application 

for amendment which is available for 

public inspection at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically from the 

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. If you do not have access 

to ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference 

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, 

or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: January 

27, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendments would revise the Operating 

License and Technical Specifications 

(TS) to implement an increase of 

approximately 1.65 percent in rated 

thermal power from the current licensed 

thermal power (CLTP) of 3,489 

megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,546 MWt. 

The proposed changes are based on 

increased feedwater (FW) flow 

measurement accuracy, which will be 

achieved by utilizing Cameron 

International (formerly Caldon) 

CheckPlusTM Leading Edge Flow Meter 

(LEFM) ultrasonic flow measurement 

instrumentation. LEFM instrumentation 

is currently installed in LaSalle County 

Station (LaSalle), Unit 1 and will be 

installed in LaSalle, Unit 2 in refueling 

outage L2R13, currently scheduled to 

complete in March 2011. 

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 reviews and evaluations performed to 

support the proposed uprate conditions 

included all components and systems that 

could be affected by this change. All systems 

will function as designed, and all 

performance requirements for these systems 

have been evaluated and were found 

acceptable. 

The primary loop components (e.g., reactor 

vessel, reactor internals, control rod drive 

housings, piping and supports, and 

recirculation pumps) remain within their 

applicable structural limits and will continue 

to perform their intended design functions. 

Thus, there is no increase in the probability 

of a structural failure of these components. 

The nuclear steam supply systems will 

continue to perform their intended design 

functions during normal and accident 

conditions. The balance of plant systems and 

components continue to meet their 

applicable structural limits and will continue 

to perform their intended design functions. 

Thus, there is no increase in the probability 

of a failure of these components. The safety 

relief valves and containment isolation 

valves meet design sizing requirements at the 

uprated power level. Because the integrity of 

the plant will not be affected by operation at 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
26290 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 

the uprated condition, Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC (EGC) has concluded that all 

structures, systems, and components 

required to mitigate a transient remain 

capable of fulfilling their intended functions. 

A majority of the current safety analyses 

remain applicable, since they were 

performed at power levels that bound 

operation at a core power of 3546 MWt. 

Other analyses previously performed at the 

current power level have either been 

evaluated or re-performed for the increased 

power level. The results demonstrate that 

acceptance criteria of the applicable analyses 

continue to be met at the uprated conditions. 

As such, all applicable accident analyses 

continue to comply with the relevant event 

acceptance criteria. The analyses performed 

to assess the effects of mass and energy 

releases remain valid. The source terms used 

to assess radiological consequences have 

been reviewed and determined to bound 

operation at the uprated condition. 

The proposed changes to add test 

requirements to the revised TS instrument 

function ensure that instruments will 

function as required to initiate protective 

systems or actuate mitigating systems at the 

point assumed in the applicable safety 

analysis. Surveillance tests are not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As such, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not affected. 

The added test requirements ensure that the 

systems and components required by the TS 

are capable of performing any mitigation 

function assumed in the accident analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 

introduced as a result of the proposed 

changes. All systems, structures, and 

components previously required for the 

mitigation of a transient remain capable of 

fulfilling their intended design functions. 

The proposed changes have no adverse 

effects on any safety-related system or 

component and do not challenge the 

performance or integrity of any safety-related 

system. 

The proposed changes to add test 

requirements to the revised TS instrument 

function do not involve a physical alteration 

of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of 

equipment will be installed, nor will there be 

a change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation). The change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis, but 

ensures that the instruments behave as 

assumed in the accident analysis. The 

proposed change is consistent with the safety 

analysis assumptions. 

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 change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Operation at the uprated power condition 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. Analyses of the primary 

fission product barriers have concluded that 

relevant design criteria remain satisfied, both 

from the standpoint of the integrity of the 

primary fission product barrier, and from the 

standpoint of compliance with the required 

acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all 

evaluations have been performed using 

methods that have either been reviewed or 

approved by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC), or that are in compliance 

with regulatory review guidance and 

standards. 

The proposed changes to add test 

requirements to the revised TS instrument 

function establish instrument performance 

criteria in TS that are currently required by 

plant procedures. The testing methods and 

acceptance criteria for systems, structures, 

and components, specified in applicable 

codes and standards (or alternatives 

approved for use by the NRC) will continue 

to be met as described in the plant licensing 

basis including the updated final safety 

analysis report. There is no impact to safety 

analysis acceptance criteria as described in 

the plant licensing basis because no change 

is made to the accident analysis assumptions. 

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: Mr. Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. 

Campbell. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP), Goodhue 

County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: 

December 22, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendment requests approval for 

application of leak-before-break (LBB) 

methodology to piping systems attached 

to the reactor coolant pressure 

boundary. No Technical Specification 

changes are requested. 

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. 

Overall protection system performance will 

remain within the bounds of the previously 

performed accident analyses. The design of 

the protection systems will be unaffected. 

The reactor protection system and engineered 

safety feature actuation system will continue 

to function in a manner consistent with the 

plant design basis. All design, material, and 

construction standards that were applicable 

prior to the request are maintained. 

For the PINGP, the bounding accident for 

pipe breaks is a Large Break Loss of Coolant 

Accident (LBLOCA). Since the application of 

the LBB Analysis verifies the integrity of the 

piping attached to the reactor coolant system, 

the probability of a previously evaluated 

accident is not increased. The consequences 

of a LBLOCA have been previously evaluated 

and found to be acceptable. The application 

of the LBB Analysis will cause no change in 

the dose analysis associated with a LBLOCA, 

and therefore, does not affect the 

consequences of an accident. 

The proposed amendment will not alter 

any assumptions or change any mitigation 

actions in the radiological consequence 

evaluations in the Updated Safety Analysis 

Report (USAR). 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or single failures are introduced 

as a result of the proposed change. All 

systems, structures, and components 

previously required for the mitigation of an 

event remain capable of fulfilling their 

intended design function. The proposed 

change has no adverse effects on any safety 

related systems or components and does not 

challenge the performance or integrity of any 

safety related system. Further, there are no 

changes in the method by which any safetyrelated plant system performs its safety 

function. This amendment will not affect the 

normal method of power operation or change 

any operating parameters. 

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. 

Margin of safety is related to the ability of 

the fission product barriers to perform their 

design functions during and following 

accident conditions. These barriers include 

the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, 

and the containment. The proposed 

amendment request does not involve a 

change to any of these barriers. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 26291 

The proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety 

because the proposed changes do not reduce 

the margin of safety that exists in the present 

PINGP Technical Specifications or USAR. 

The operability requirements of the 

Technical Specifications are consistent with 

the initial condition assumptions of the 

safety analyses. The proposed change does 

not affect any Technical Specification Action 

statement requirements. 

This proposed amendment uses LBB 

technology combined with leakage 

monitoring to show that it is acceptable to 

exclude the dynamic effects associated with 

postulated pipe ruptures from the licensing 

basis for the systems evaluated that are 

attached to the [reactor coolant system] RCS. 

The enclosed analysis demonstrates that the 

LBB margins discussed in NUREG–1061 

Volume 3 are satisfied. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment requests involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: 

December 28, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendment would increase the licensed 

rated thermal power (RTP) as a result of 

a measurement uncertainly recapture 

(MUR) power uprate (PU). The proposed 

change would increase the licensed RTP 

level by 1.64 percent from 1650 

megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1677 MWt 

for both units. The request is based on 

reduced uncertainty in the RTP 

measurement achieved by installation of 

a Caldon Leading Edge Flow Meter 

(LEFM) CheckplusTM System used to 

measure feedwater flow and 

temperature. 

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. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

There are no changes as a result of the 

MUR PU to the design or operation of the 

plant that could affect system, component, or 

accident mitigative functions. All systems 

and components will function as designed 

and the applicable performance requirements 

have been evaluated and found to be 

acceptable. 

The reduction in power measurement 

uncertainty allows for the accident and 

transient safety analyses to continue to be 

used without modification. This is because 

the preceding safety analyses were performed 

or evaluated at either 102 percent of 1650 

MWt or higher. Those accidents or transients 

that were reanalyzed for MUR concluded that 

the existing analyses remain bounding and 

the conclusions presented in the Updated 

Safety Analysis Report remain valid. 

Analyses at these power levels support a 

core power level of 1677 MWt with a 

measurement uncertainty of 0.36 percent. 

Radiological consequences were performed at 

102 percent of 1650 MWt (or higher) and 

continue to be bounding. 

The primary loop components were 

evaluated for the effects of MUR PU 

conditions. These analyses also demonstrate 

the components will continue to perform 

their intended design functions. 

All of the Nuclear Steam Supply System 

(NSSS) systems will continue to perform 

their intended design functions during 

normal and accident conditions. The 

auxiliary systems and components continue 

to comply with the applicable structural 

limits and will continue to perform their 

intended design functions. The NSSS/ 

Balance of Plant interface systems were 

evaluated and will continue to perform their 

intended design functions. Plant electrical 

equipment was also evaluated and will 

continue to perform within their design 

ratings. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. The proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or single failures are introduced 

as a result of the proposed change. The LEFM 

has been analyzed, and system failures will 

not adversely affect any safety-related system 

or any structures, systems or components 

required for transient mitigation. Structures, 

systems and components previously required 

for mitigation of an event remain capable of 

fulfilling their intended function at the 

uprated power level. The proposed change 

has no adverse effects on any safety-related 

systems or components and does not 

challenge the performance or integrity of any 

safety-related system. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect any current system interfaces or create 

any new interfaces that could result in an 

accident or malfunction of a different kind 

than previously evaluated. Operating at the 

proposed RTP does not create any new 

accident initiators or precursors. Credible 

malfunctions are bounded by the current 

accident analyses of record or recent 

evaluations demonstrating that applicable 

criteria are still met with the proposed 

changes. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant reduction in the margin of 

safety. 

Operation at the 1677 MWt core power 

does not involve a significant reduction in 

the margin of safety. The current accident 

analyses have been previously performed 

with a 2-percent power measurement 

uncertainty or at a core power bounding the 

1677 MWt. System and component analyses 

have been completed at operating conditions 

that envelop the MUR uprated operating 

conditions. Analyses of the primary fission 

product barriers at uprated core powers have 

concluded that all relevant plant operating 

conditions remain satisfied in regard to 

integrity and compliance with the regulatory 

acceptance criteria. Evaluations have been 

reviewed and approved by the NRC or are in 

compliance with applicable regulatory 

review guidance and standards. 

Based on the above, 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 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: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention 

Preparation 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 

County, Illinois 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP), Goodhue 

County, Minnesota 

A. This Order contains instructions 

regarding how potential parties to this 

proceeding may request access to 

documents containing Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information (SUNSI). 

B. Within 10 days after publication of 

this notice of hearing and opportunity to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
26292 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 

1While a request for hearing or petition to 

intervene in this proceeding must comply with the 

filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’ the 

initial request to access SUNSI under these 

procedures should be submitted as described in this 

paragraph. 

2Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must 

be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief 

Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not 

yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline 

for the receipt of the written access request. 

3Requestors should note that the filing 

requirements of the NRC’s E–Filing Rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC 

staff determinations (because they must be served 

on a presiding officer or the Commission, as 

applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request 

submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 

petition for leave to intervene, any 

potential party who believes access to 

SUNSI is necessary to respond to this 

notice may request such access. A 

‘‘potential party’’ is any person who 

intends to participate as a party by 

demonstrating standing and filing an 

admissible contention under 10 CFR 

2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 

submitted later than 10 days after 

publication will not be considered 

absent a showing of good cause for the 

late filing, addressing why the request 

could not have been filed earlier. 

C. The requestor shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI 

to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 

and provide a copy to the Associate 

General Counsel for Hearings, 

Enforcement and Administration, Office 

of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. The expedited delivery or 

courier mail address for both offices is: 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for 

the Office of the Secretary and the 

Office of the General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1

The request must include the following 

information: 

(1) A description of the licensing 

action with a citation to this Federal 

Register notice; 

(2) The name and address of the 

potential party and a description of the 

potential party’s particularized interest 

that could be harmed by the action 

identified in C.(1); 

(3) The identity of the individual or 

entity requesting access to SUNSI and 

the requestor’s basis for the need for the 

information in order to meaningfully 

participate in this adjudicatory 

proceeding. In particular, the request 

must explain why publicly-available 

versions of the information requested 

would not be sufficient to provide the 

basis and specificity for a proffered 

contention; 

D. Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted under paragraph 

C.(3) the NRC staff will determine 

within 10 days of receipt of the request 

whether: 

(1) There is a reasonable basis to 

believe the petitioner is likely to 

establish standing to participate in this 

NRC proceeding; and 

(2) The requestor has established a 

legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 

E. If the NRC staff determines that the 

requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) 

above, the NRC staff will notify the 

requestor in writing that access to 

SUNSI has been granted. The written 

notification will contain instructions on 

how the requestor may obtain copies of 

the requested documents, and any other 

conditions that may apply to access to 

those documents. These conditions may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement 

or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting 

forth terms and conditions to prevent 

the unauthorized or inadvertent 

disclosure of SUNSI by each individual 

who will be granted access to SUNSI. 

F. Filing of Contentions. Any 

contentions in these proceedings that 

are based upon the information received 

as a result of the request made for 

SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no 

later than 25 days after the requestor is 

granted access to that information. 

However, if more than 25 days remain 

between the date the petitioner is 

granted access to the information and 

the deadline for filing all other 

contentions (as established in the notice 

of hearing or opportunity for hearing), 

the petitioner may file its SUNSI 

contentions by that later deadline. 

G. Review of Denials of Access. 

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI 

is denied by the NRC staff either after 

a determination on standing and need 

for access, or after a determination on 

trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC 

staff shall immediately notify the 

requestor in writing, briefly stating the 

reason or reasons for the denial. 

(2) The requestor may challenge the 

NRC staff’s adverse determination by 

filing a challenge within 5 days of 

receipt of that determination with: (a) 

the presiding officer designated in this 

proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer 

has been appointed, the Chief 

Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 

unavailable, another administrative 

judge, or an administrative law judge 

with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has 

been designated to rule on information 

access issues, with that officer. 

H. Review of Grants of Access. A 

party other than the requestor may 

challenge an NRC staff determination 

granting access to SUNSI whose release 

would harm that party’s interest 

independent of the proceeding. Such a 

challenge must be filed with the Chief 

Administrative Judge within 5 days of 

the notification by the NRC staff of its 

grant of access. 

If challenges to the NRC staff 

determinations are filed, these 

procedures give way to the normal 

process for litigating disputes 

concerning access to information. The 

availability of interlocutory review by 

the Commission of orders ruling on 

such NRC staff determinations (whether 

granting or denying access) is governed 

by 10 CFR 2.311.3

I. The Commission expects that the 

NRC staff and presiding officers (and 

any other reviewing officers) will 

consider and resolve requests for access 

to SUNSI, and motions for protective 

orders, in a timely fashion in order to 

minimize any unnecessary delays in 

identifying those petitioners who have 

standing and who have propounded 

contentions meeting the specificity and 

basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. 

Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes 

the general target schedule for 

processing and resolving requests under 

these procedures. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of May 2010. 

For the Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Attachment 1—General Target 

Schedule for Processing and Resolving 

Requests for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information in This Proceeding 

Day Event/activity 

0 ............... Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions 

for access requests. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 26293 

Day Event/activity 

10 ............. Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: Supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the 

potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 

60 ............. Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does 

not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner reply). 

20 ............. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party 

to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff

makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of 

redactions or review of redacted documents). 

25 ............. If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the 

proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion 

seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 

30 ............. Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 

40 ............. (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file 

motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement 

for SUNSI. 

A .............. If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse 

determination by the NRC staff. 

A + 3 ........ Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective 

order. 

A + 28 ...... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. 

A + 53 ...... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. 

A + 60 ...... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

>A + 60 .... Decision on contention admission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10820 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0002] 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATES: Weeks of May 10, 17, 24, 31, 

June, 7, 14, 2010. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and closed. 

Week of May 10, 2010 

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME) 

Programs, Performance, & Future 

Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: 

George Deegan, 301–415–7834). 

This meeting will be Webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of May 17, 2010—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of May 17, 2010. 

Week of May 24, 2010—Tentative 

Thursday, May 27, 2010 

9:30 a.m. Briefing on the Results of the 

Agency Action Review Meeting 

(AARM) (Public Meeting). (Contact: 

Nathan Sanfilippo, 301–415–3951.) 

This meeting will be Webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of May 31, 2010—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of May 31, 2010. 

Week of June 7, 2010—Tentative 

Wednesday, June 9, 2010 

1:30 p.m. Meeting with the Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(Public Meeting). (Contact: 

Cayetano Santos, 301–415–7270). 

This meeting will be Webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of June 14, 2010—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of June 14, 2010. 

*The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

Additional Information 

By a vote of 4–1 on April 29 and 30, 

2010, the Commission determined 

pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 

§ 9.107(a) of the Commission’s rules to 

have a closed meeting—Discussion of 

Adjudicatory Issues (Closed—Ex. 10) on 

April 30, 2010, with less than one week 

notice to the public. 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify Angela 

Bolduc, Chief, Employee/Labor 

Relations and Work Life Branch, at 301– 

492–2230, TDD: 301–415–2100, or by email at angela.bolduc@nrc.gov. 

Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodation will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an e-mail to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES