Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32509 

addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports 

Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 

295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail 

to splimpto@nsf.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292–7556 or 

send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

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

Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request 

for Clearance for Evaluation of the 

National Science Foundation’s (NSF) 

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship 

(Noyce) Program. 

Title of Collection: Evaluation of the 

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship 

Program. 

OMB Control No.: 3145–(NEW) 

Expiration Date of Approval: Not 

applicable. 

Abstract: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) requests a three-year 

clearance for research, evaluation and 

data collection (e.g., surveys and 

interviews) about the Noyce Program. 

NSF established the Robert Noyce 

Teacher Scholarship Program to 

encourage talented STEM majors and 

professionals to become K–12 

mathematics and science teachers. The 

Noyce Program awards scholarships, 

stipends, fellowships and internships to 

support the preparation of K–12 

teachers in mathematics and science. 

For specific details and the most 

updated information regarding Noyce 

program operations, please visit the NSF 

Web site at: http://www.nsf.gov/ 

funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5733. 

The study will survey Principal 

Investigators of the Noyce Program, 

Science, Technology, Engineering, or 

Mathematics (STEM) Faculty involved 

in the Noyce Program, Noyce 

Recipients, and K–12 Principals in 

schools where former recipients are 

teaching. Noyce recipients may be 

undergraduates majoring in a science, 

technology, engineering, or mathematics 

(STEM) discipline; STEM postbaccalaureates; STEM professionals; or 

exemplary mathematics and science 

teachers, who have master’s degrees. 

The Noyce program evaluation will 

include all awards made between 2003 

and 2009. 

NSF has contracted a program 

evaluation of the Noyce Program, to be 

conducted by Abt Associates Inc. 

Through this evaluation of the Noyce 

Program, NSF aims to examine and 

document: 

(1) The strategies and programs Noyce 

grantees use to recruit and retain teacher 

candidates, both during teacher 

preparation and during the induction 

period; 

(2) The institutional change occurring 

within STEM departments regarding the 

preparation of future mathematics and 

science teachers; 

(3) The relationships between 

characteristics of the Noyce Program, 

types of Noyce recipients, 

characteristics of the schools in which 

Noyce recipients teach, and recipients’ 

plans to teach in high-need schools and 

to pursue leadership roles; and 

(4) The impacts of the Noyce program 

on teacher recruitment and retention 

and on teacher effectiveness. 

The methods of data collection will 

include both primary and secondary 

data collections. Primary data collection 

will include surveys and telephone 

interviews; secondary data sources 

include open sources, records at NSF 

and grantee institutions, and state 

departments of education and teacher 

retirement funds. There is a bounded (or 

limited) number of respondents within 

the general public who will be affected 

by this research, including current and 

former Noyce grantees and associated 

faculty, STEM majors, postbaccalaureates, or professionals eligible 

who are supported by Noyce funding, 

and K–12 principals and district 

administrators. NSF will use the Noyce 

program evaluation data and analyses to 

provide information and/or respond to 

requests from Committees of Visitors 

(COV), Congress and the Office of 

Management and Budget, particularly as 

related to the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) and the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART) or its replacement. NSF will 

also use the program evaluation to share 

the broader impacts of the Noyce 

program with the general public. 

Respondents: Individuals, Federal 

Government, State, Local or Tribal 

Government and not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

5,000. 

Burden on the Public: 2,400 hours. 

Dated: June 3, 2010. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13774 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0190] 

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) 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example, 

in derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements and Directives Branch 

(RADB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be faxed to the RADB at 301–492– 

3446. Documents may be examined, 

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

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 

2. Interested person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area 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 E– 

Filing process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E–Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

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 NRCVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32511 

issued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

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

apply-certificates.html. System 

requirements for accessing the E– 

Submittal server are detailed in NRC’s 

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

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

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E–Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E–Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through EIE, users will be 

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

information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E–Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E–Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E–Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

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

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E–Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/ 

e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) first class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use E-Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E–Filing no 

longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

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. 

Carolina Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and 

Chatham Counties, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: March 

23, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information. The proposed amendment 

would revise Technical Specification 

Section 6.9.1.6 to add the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved 

topical report (TR) EMF–2103(P)(A), 

Revision 0, ‘‘Realistic Large-Break LOCA 

[Loss-of-Coolant Accident] Methodology 

for Pressurized Water Reactors,’’ to the 

Core Operating Limits Report 

methodologies list. This change will 

allow the use of the thermal-hydraulic 

computer analysis code S–RELAP5 for 

the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 

Chapter 15 realistic large-break LOCA in 

the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, 

Unit 1 safety analyses. TR EMF– 

2103(P)(A), Revision 0, was approved by 

the NRC on April 9, 2003, for the 

application of the S–RELAP5 thermalhydraulic analysis computer code to 

FSAR Chapter 15 realistic large-break 

LOCA. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32512 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

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 topical report has been reviewed and 

approved by the NRC for use in determining 

core operating limits and for evaluation of 

large break loss-of-coolant accidents. The 

core operating limits to be developed using 

the new methodologies for HNP [Shearon 

Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1] will be 

established in accordance with the applicable 

limitations as documented in the NRC Safety 

Evaluation Report. In the April 9, 2003, NRC 

SE [safety evaluation], the NRC concluded 

that the S–RELAP5 RLBLOCA [realistic largebreak loss-of-coolant accident] methodology 

is acceptable for referencing in licensing 

applications in accordance with the stated 

limitations. 

The proposed change enables the use of 

new methodology to re-analyze a large break 

loss-of-coolant accident. It does not, by itself, 

impact the current design bases. Revised 

analysis may either result in continued 

conformance with design bases or may 

change the design bases. If design basis 

changes result from a revised analysis, the 

specific design changes will be evaluated in 

accordance with HNP design change 

procedures and 10 CFR 50.59. 

The proposed change does not involve 

physical changes to any plant structure, 

system, or component. Therefore, the 

probability of occurrence for a previously 

analyzed accident is not significantly 

increased. 

The consequences of a previously analyzed 

accident are dependent on the initial 

conditions assumed for the analysis, the 

behavior of the fission product barriers 

during the analyzed accident, the availability 

and successful functioning of the equipment 

assumed to operate in response to the 

analyzed event, and the setpoints at which 

these actions are initiated. 

The proposed methodologies will ensure 

that the plant continues to meet applicable 

design and safety analyses acceptance 

criteria. The proposed change does not affect 

the performance of any equipment used to 

mitigate the consequences of an analyzed 

accident. As a result, no analysis 

assumptions are impacted and there are no 

adverse effects on the factors that contribute 

to offsite or onsite dose as a result of an 

accident. The proposed change does not 

affect setpoints that initiate protective or 

mitigative actions. The proposed change 

ensures that plant structures, systems, and 

components are maintained consistent with 

the safety analysis and licensing bases. 

Therefore, this amendment does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of a previously 

analyzed accident. 

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 does not involve any 

physical alteration of plant systems, 

structures, or components. No new or 

different equipment is being installed and no 

installed equipment is being operated in a 

different manner. There is no change to the 

parameters within which the plant is 

normally operated or in the setpoints that 

initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a 

result, no new failure modes are being 

introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed change will 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. 

There is no impact on any margin of safety 

resulting from the incorporation of this new 

topical report into the Technical 

Specifications. If design basis changes result 

from a revised analysis that uses these new 

methodologies, the specific design changes 

will be evaluated in accordance with HNP 

design change procedures and 10 CFR 50.59. 

Any potential reduction in the margin of 

safety would be evaluated for that specific 

design change. 

Therefore, this amendment 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: David T. 

Conley, Associate General Counsel II— 

Legal Department, Progress Energy 

Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 

1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: March 

25, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

changes revise the operating license and 

technical specifications (TSs) to 

implement an increase of approximately 

1.65% in rated thermal power from the 

current licensed thermal power of 3458 

megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3515 MWt. 

The proposed changes are based on 

increased feedwater flow measurement 

accuracy, which will be achieved by 

utilizing Cameron International 

(formerly Caldon) CheckPIus Leading 

Edge Flow Meter ultrasonic flow 

measurement instrumentation. The 

proposed changes also modify certain 

TS setpoints and channel surveillance 

requirements associated with average 

power range monitor simulated thermal 

power. Additionally, the proposed 

changes include a modification to the 

standby liquid control system (SLCS), 

that allows operators to select two 

pumps instead of three for the automatic 

start function on an anticipated 

transient without scram (ATWS) signal. 

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, with Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes [other than those 

associated with the SLCS] do not affect 

system design or operation and thus do not 

create any new accident initiators or increase 

the probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. All accident mitigation systems 

will function as designed, and all 

performance requirements for these systems 

have been evaluated and were found 

acceptable. The SLCS performance 

requirements will be met with completion of 

the SLCS modification described in the 

proposed changes. 

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 

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 3515 MWt. 

Other analyses previously performed at the 

current power level have either been 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32513 

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. 

The anticipated transient without scram 

event criteria will be met with completion of 

the SLCS modification described in the 

proposed changes. 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 add test 

requirements to TS instrument functions 

[that are changed by this license amendment 

and are] related to those variables that have 

a significant safety function to 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 significantly increased. 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. 

The SLCS modification does not affect the 

probability of an accident, as the control 

system is not an initiator in any accident. 

The modification maintains all of the 

assumptions in the analyses of events for 

which the system is designed. Thus, the 

response to these events is unaffected. 

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 [that create a new or different 

accident than previously evaluated] 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 safetyrelated system. 

The proposed changes regarding 

instrument testing 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. 

The SLCS system is not an initiator of any 

accidents. 

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, or that are in compliance with 

regulatory review guidance and standards. 

The proposed changes add test 

requirements that 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. The SLCS 

modification maintains all of the 

assumptions in the analyses of events for 

which the system is designed. Thus, the 

response to these events is unaffected. 

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, and with the changes noted 

above in square brackets, 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: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Esquire, Associate General 

Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, 

LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, 

IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. 

Chernoff. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean 

County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: February 

25, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The amendment 

would revise Technical Specifications 

to allow temporary changes to the 

secondary containment boundary 

during shutdown conditions. 

Specifically, the proposed change 

would allow the Reactor Building 

secondary containment boundary 

associated with the Trunnion Room to 

be relocated from the Trunnion Room 

outer wall and door to the Reactor 

Building inner walls and penetrations 

located inside the Trunnion Room. 

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 changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated.] 

The proposed changes do not involve any 

modifications to any structures, components, 

or systems that would affect the probability 

of an accident previously evaluated in the 

Oyster Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the proposed 

changes do not significantly increase the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The Secondary Containment structure and 

the [Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS)], 

and any component thereof, are not accident 

initiators. No other accident initiator is 

affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, 

the proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

There are no changes or modifications in 

the function or operation of the SGTS being 

proposed to temporarily relocate the 

Trunnion Room Secondary Containment 

boundary during Cold Shutdown conditions. 

Therefore, changing the Secondary 

Containment boundary for the Trunnion 

Room will not result in any change to the 

frequency of an accident or transient 

previously evaluated in the UFSAR. 

The malfunction of any portion of 

Secondary Containment, including the SGTS, 

would have the same results and 

consequences regardless of whether the 

Secondary Containment boundary is 

maintained at the Trunnion Room door or 

inside the Trunnion Room. 

Relocating the Secondary Containment 

boundary during Cold Shutdown conditions 

will help to improve Secondary Containment 

integrity. Secondary Containment integrity is 

maintained by the single Trunnion Room 

door. The relocated Secondary Containment 

boundary established inside the Trunnion 

Room will be more substantial since the 

penetrations will be blocked and sealed. Less 

air will be drawn into the Reactor Building 

during SGTS operation and a larger negative 

pressure will be maintained in the Reactor 

Building. As a result, better Secondary 

Containment response would be expected 

during any postulated accidents or transients 

in this configuration. 

Since the proposed change to relocate the 

Secondary Containment boundary will only 

be implemented when the plant is in a Cold 

Shutdown condition, when a pipe break 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

accident is not credible and isolation of the 

Main Steam and Feedwater Supply lines will 

be maintained by isolation of either the 

inboard or outboard isolation valves or other 

engineered isolation mechanisms/devices 

within Secondary Containment; any release 

from the [reactor pressure vessel] RPV or any 

attached system will be contained in the 

Reactor Building. Once the RPV head is 

removed, any gaseous release due to fuel 

damage from any accident or transient would 

be drawn into the Reactor Building and 

through the SGTS as designed. The drop of 

a fuel bundle and postulated release of 

fission product gases would be drawn into 

the Reactor Building and through the SGTS 

as designed. Because the Secondary 

Containment will be maintained under 

negative pressure (i.e., greater than ¥0.25′′ 

water column) when required and the 

penetrations inside the Trunnion Room will 

be blocked and sealed, all releases in the 

Reactor Building, including in the RPV and 

Spent Fuel Pool, will be contained within 

Secondary Containment and will not be 

released into the Trunnion Room. Therefore, 

the proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR. 

Therefore, based on the above information, 

the proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. [The proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated.] 

The proposed changes will not create the 

possibility for a new or different type of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed changes do not 

involve any modifications to any structure, 

systems, or components that would create the 

possibility of an accident. The Secondary 

Containment, SGTS[,] and any related 

equipment important to safety will continue 

to operate as designed. Component integrity 

is not challenged. The changes do not result 

in more adverse conditions or result in any 

increase in the challenges to safety systems. 

The systems affected by the changes are used 

to mitigate the consequences of an accident 

that would have already occurred. The 

proposed changes do not allow reduction of 

the mitigative function of these systems. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident. 

This temporary configuration change 

removes the Trunnion Room outer wall and 

door as part of Secondary Containment 

during Cold Shutdown and allows the 

Technical Specifications (TS) required 

administrative controls for the Trunnion 

Room door to be relaxed. Secondary 

Containment integrity will be maintained in 

accordance with applicable TS requirements 

and any releases from the RPV or its attached 

systems will be contained within Secondary 

Containment and will not be released into 

the Trunnion Room. All releases within 

Secondary Containment will be processed by 

the SGTS. This activity does not change the 

design, function[,] or operation of any 

structure, system, or component important to 

safety other than removing the Trunnion 

Room as part of the Secondary Containment 

boundary. Therefore, the proposed activity 

does not create a possibility for an accident 

of a different type. 

The Secondary Containment, with the 

exception of the SGTS, is a passive system 

that cannot and will not result in any 

malfunction of a structure, system, or 

component important to safety. No change to 

the function or operation of the SGTS is 

being considered as a result of the proposed 

change to temporarily relocate the Trunnion 

Room Secondary Containment boundary 

during Cold Shutdown conditions. Changing 

the Secondary Containment boundary for the 

Trunnion Room will not result in any 

malfunction to a structure, system, or 

component important to safety. Therefore, 

the proposed changes do not create a 

possibility for a malfunction of a structure, 

system, or component important to safety 

with a different result than any previously 

evaluated in the UFSAR. 

Therefore, based on the above information, 

the proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. [The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety.] 

The Secondary Containment provides 

protection to the public by containing any 

radioactive releases that result from 

transients or accidents contained in the 

[Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station] 

design bases. With the exception of the 

SGTS, the Secondary Containment is a 

passive system that cannot and will not 

result in any accident or transient evaluated 

in the UFSAR. No change to the function or 

operation of the SGTS is being proposed 

when relocating the Trunnion Room 

Secondary Containment boundary during 

Cold Shutdown conditions. 

The proposed changes to relocate the 

Trunnion Room Secondary Containment 

boundary from the outer wall and door, to 

the inner walls and penetrations inside the 

Trunnion Room during Cold Shutdown 

conditions will not result in any change to 

the frequency of an accident or transient 

previously evaluated in the UFSAR. 

TS administrative controls will be 

instituted in support of relocating the 

Secondary Containment boundary and TS 

required surveillance testing will be 

completed to ensure that Secondary 

Containment integrity can be maintained in 

the modified configuration within design 

parameters. 

Secondary Containment integrity will be 

maintained as required, and any release from 

the RPV or any attached system will be 

contained in the Reactor Building. The 

Secondary Containment and SGTS will 

continue to function as designed in the event 

of an accident or transient that requires the 

Secondary Containment to act as a fission 

product barrier to prevent a radioactive 

release. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

impact the operation of any plant structure, 

system, or component important to safety. 

The Secondary Containment and the SGTS 

will continue to function and respond as 

designed. The proposed changes do not 

result in a departure from a method of 

evaluation described in the UFSAR used in 

establishing the design bases or in the safety 

analyses. 

Therefore, based on the above information, 

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, and with the changes noted 

above in square brackets, 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. J. Bradley 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention 

Preparation 

Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., 

Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 

Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham 

Counties, North Carolina 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, Limerick 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station, Ocean County, New Jersey 

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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32515 

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. 

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 1st day 

of June 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory 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. 

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). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32516 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING—Continued 

Day Event/Activity 

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. 2010–13617 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; Docket 

Nos. 50–280 and 50–281; NRC–2010–0116] 

Virginia Electric and Power Company; 

North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2; Surry Power Station, Unit Nos.1 

and 2; Exemption 

1.0 Background 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

(the licensee) is the holder of Facility 

Operating License Nos. NPF–4, NPF–7, 

DPR–32, and DPR–37, which authorize 

operation of the North Anna Power 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (NAPS) and 

Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 

(SPS) located in Lake Anna, Virginia, 

and Surry, Virginia, respectively. The 

license provides, among other things, 

that the facility is subject to all rules, 

regulations, and orders of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC, the 

Commission) now or hereafter in effect. 

The facilities consist of two 

pressurized-water reactors each located 

in Lake Anna, Virginia, and Surry, 

Virginia, respectively. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Part 20, 

‘‘Standards for Protection Against 

Radiation’’ Subpart H, ‘‘Respiratory 

Protection and Controls to Restrict 

Internal Exposure in Restricted Areas,’’ 

establishes the requirements for 

implementing a respiratory protection 

program. These programmatic 

requirements ensure that worker doses 

from airborne radioactive materials are 

maintained as low as reasonably 

achievable. 

In summary, by letter dated November 

24, 2009, as supplemented by letter 

dated February 11, 2010, the licensee 

requested an exemption from 10 CFR 

20.1703(a), 10 CFR 20.1703(g)(1), and 

certain requirements of 10 CFR part 20, 

Appendix A, Footnote ‘‘a,’’ to use the 

Mine Safety Appliances, Inc. (MSA), 

model Firehawk 7 Air Mask selfcontained breathing apparatus (SCBA) 

with a gas mixture of 35% oxygen and 

65% nitrogen at SPS and NAPS. The 

licensee’s letter dated November 24, 

2009, contains proprietary information 

and accordingly is not available to the 

public. In addition, the licensee 

requested NRC authorization under 10 

CFR 20.1703(b) to use these SCBAs in 

a configuration not certified by the 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH). The 

regulations in 10 CFR 20.1703(b) allow 

a licensee to seek authorization to use 

respiratory equipment that has not been 

tested and certified by NIOSH. When 

seeking authorization to use equipment 

not certified by NIOSH, the licensee is 

required to demonstrate by testing that 

a respirator is capable of safely 

providing the necessary level of 

protection under the anticipated 

conditions of use. An exemption from 

20.1703(a) and an exemption from the 

protection factors listed in 10 CFR part 

20, appendix A is not necessary when 

the NRC grants authorization under 

20.1703(b) for use of the respiratory 

equipment. 

3.0 Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2301, the 

Commission may, upon application by a 

licensee or upon its own initiative, grant 

an exemption from the requirements of 

10 CFR part 20, as it deems appropriate 

or necessary to protect health or to 

minimize danger to life or property. 

Authorized by Law 

This exemption would allow the use 

of MSA model Firehawk M7 Air Mask 

SCBA with a gas mixture of 35% oxygen 

and 65% nitrogen. Section 20.1703(b) 

permits a licensee to request NRC 

approval to use equipment which has 

not been tested or certified by NIOSH. 

The application must supply evidence 

that equipment is capable of providing 

the proposed degree of protection under 

the anticipated conditions of use. 

Dominion has demonstrated, by 

documented third-party testing 

conducted by the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration and Interek, 

that the equipment will continue to 

provide the proposed degree of 

protection under the anticipated 

conditions of use. Dominion also has 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES