54390 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

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. 

Description of Permit Modification 

Requested: The Foundation issued a 

permit (2010–010) to Dr. Daniel P. Costa 

on January 5, 2010. The issued permit 

allows the applicant to census, tag, 

weigh, measure, and collect blood and 

tissue samples, and instrument 

mammals (Weddell, Crabeater, Ross, 

Leopard and Southern Elephant seals). 

The studies of these animals will help 

in understanding how they respond to 

temperature fluctuations and how their 

foraging behavior and habitat utilization 

varies over large spatial and temporal 

scales. The applicant requests a 

modification to his permit to administer 

40–60 gr of 0–18 labeled water and to 

attach a small drag inducing device 

along with the ARGOS telemetry tag, a 

TDR and an accelerometer tag. The 0– 

18 water is a stable isotope and should 

have no adverse affect on the animal. 

This procedure will help to understand 

the foraging energy expenditure from 

isotopic turnover. 

Location: Ross Sea and McMurdo 

Sound. 

Dated: October 1, 2010 to December 31, 

2012. 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22130 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0290] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

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

Commission (the Commission or NRC) 

is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from August 25, 

2010, to September 8, 2010. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

August 24, 2010 (75 FR 52039). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, 

this means that operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

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 O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license. 

Requests for a hearing and a petition for 

leave to intervene shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 

2. Interested person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 54391 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order, which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions, which the requestor/ 

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion, which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/ 

petitioner to relief. A requestor/ 

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule 

(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the Internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 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 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54392 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

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 

license amendment application, see the 

application for amendment which is 

available for public inspection at the 

Commission’s PDR, located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area 

O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 

available records will be accessible from 

the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

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

adams.html. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, should contact the 

NRC PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397– 

4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina; 

Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: April 26, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications to 

reflect changes to organization, unit staff 

responsibility, and unit staff 

qualifications. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed TS [Technical Specification] 

change regarding unit staff qualifications is 

an administrative change to clarify the 

current requirements for licensed operator 

qualifications and training program. With 

this change, the TS continue to meet the 

current requirements of 10 CFR 55 [Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

Part 50 Section 55]. Although licensed 

operator qualifications and training may have 

an indirect impact on accidents previously 

evaluated, the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission] considered this impact during 

the rulemaking process, and by promulgation 

of the revised 10 CFR 55 rule, concluded that 

this impact remains acceptable as long as the 

licensed operator training programs are 

certified to be accredited and are based on a 

systems approach to training. The Duke 

Energy [Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC] 

licensed operator training program is 

accredited by NANT [National Academy of 

Nuclear Training] and is based on a systems 

approach to training. The proposed TS 

change takes credit for the NANT 

accreditation of the licensed operator training 

program. The TS requirements for all other 

plant staff qualifications remain unchanged. 

The proposed TS change regarding 

responsibility, organization and high 

radiation area is administrative in nature to 

reflect the current titles and responsibilities 

of station personnel and are consistent with 

STS [Standard Technical Specifications]. 

Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed TS change regarding unit 

staff qualifications is an administrative 

change to clarify the current requirements for 

licensed operator qualifications and training 

program and to conform to the revised 10 

CFR 55. As discussed above, although 

licensed operator qualifications and training 

may have an indirect impact on the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated, the NRC considered this impact 

during the rule making process, and by 

promulgation of the revised rule, concluded 

that this impact remains acceptable as long 

as licensed operator training programs are 

certified to be accredited and based on a 

systems approach to training. As previously 

noted, the Duke Energy licensed operator 

training program is accredited by NANT and 

is based on a systems approach to training. 

The proposed TS change takes credit for the 

NANT accreditation of the licensed operator 

training program. The TS requirements for all 

other plant staff qualifications remain 

unchanged. Additionally, the proposed TS 

change does not affect plant design, 

hardware, system operation, or procedures. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed TS change regarding 

responsibility, organization and high 

radiation area does not impact any plant 

systems that are accident initiators nor does 

it adversely impact any accident mitigating 

system. No physical changes are being made 

to the plant. This change is administrative in 

nature to reflect the current titles and 

responsibilities of station personnel and 

consistent with STS. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in the margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed TS change regarding unit 

staff qualifications is an administrative 

change to clarify the current requirements 

applicable to licensed operator qualifications 

and training program. With this change, the 

TS continue to be consistent with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 55. The TS 

qualification requirements for all other plant 

staff remain unchanged. Licensed operator 

qualifications and training can have an 

indirect impact on the margin of safety. 

However, the NRC considered this impact 

during the rulemaking process, and by 

promulgation of the revised 10 CFR Part 55, 

determined that this impact remains 

acceptable when licensees maintain a 

licensed operator training program that is 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 54393 

accredited and based on a systems approach 

to training. As noted previously, the Duke 

Energy licensed operator training program is 

accredited by NANT and is based on a 

systems approach to training. 

The NRC has concluded, as stated in 

NUREG–1262, that the standards and 

guidelines provided by the Institute for 

Nuclear Power Operations’ NANT in their 

training accreditation program are equivalent 

to those put forth or endorsed by the NRC. 

As a result, maintaining a NANT accredited, 

systems approach to licensed operator 

training program is equivalent to maintaining 

an NRC approved licensed operator training 

program which conforms to applicable NRC 

Regulatory Guides or NRC endorsed industry 

standards. The margin of safety is maintained 

by virtue of maintaining the NANT 

accredited licensed operator training 

program. 

In addition, the NRC published RIS 2001– 

001 to familiarize licensees with the NRC’s 

current guidelines for the qualification and 

training of RO [reactor operator] and SO 

[senior operator] license applicants. This 

document again acknowledges that the 

NANT guidelines for education and 

experience outline acceptable methods for 

implementing the NRC’s regulations in this 

area. 

The proposed TS change regarding 

responsibility, organization and high 

radiation area is administrative in nature to 

reflect the current titles and responsibilities 

of station personnel and is consistent with 

STS. Systems and components are not 

affected, and therefore are capable of 

performing as designed. The performance of 

fission product barriers will not be impacted 

by this proposed change. 

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: Lara S. Nichols, 

Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Corporation, 526 South Church Street— 

EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina; 

Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: July 28, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Emergency Plans to reflect 

changes to on-shift staffing and 

augmentation times. 

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? 

The proposed amendment changes the 

minimum staffing levels and augmentation 

times for emergency response personnel. The 

proposed changes do not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. The 

Emergency Plan is activated in response to an 

accident. It is not an initiator of any accident. 

The purpose of the Emergency Plan is to 

assist in mitigating the consequences of 

accidents. These changes do not result in a 

reduction of the emergency response 

organization’s capability to respond to an 

emergency. The emergency planning 

functions of radiological accident assessment 

and support of operational accident 

assessment as well as protective actions (inplant) are maintained. The proposed changes 

do not affect the ability of the plan to be a 

comprehensive emergency plan. 

Therefore, it is concluded that these 

changes do 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? 

The proposed amendment does not involve 

any change in the design, configuration, or 

operation of the nuclear plants. The current 

plant design, design bases, and plant safety 

analysis will remain the same. The Limiting 

Conditions for Operations, Limiting Safety 

System Settings and Safety Limits as 

specified in the Technical Specifications are 

not affected by the proposed changes. As 

such, the plant conditions for which the 

design basis accident analyses were 

performed remain valid. The proposed 

amendment does not introduce a new mode 

of plant operation or new accident 

precursors, does not involve any physical 

alterations to plant configurations, or make 

changes to system set points that could 

initiate a new or different kind of accident. 

The Emergency Plan is used to respond to an 

accident. These changes do not result in a 

reduction of the emergency response 

organization’s capability to respond to an 

emergency. The proposed changes do not 

affect the ability of the plan to be a 

comprehensive emergency plan. 

Therefore, it is concluded that these 

changes do not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

The proposed amendment does not involve 

a change in the design, configuration, or 

operation of the nuclear plants. The changes 

do not affect either the way in which the 

plant structures, systems and components 

(SSCs) perform their safety function or their 

design and licensing basis. Plant safety 

margins are established through Limiting 

Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety 

System Settings and Safety Limits specified 

in the Technical Specifications. Because 

there is no change to the physical design of 

the plant, there is no change to any of these 

margins. 

Therefore, it is concluded that these 

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: Lara S. Nichols, 

Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Corporation, 526 South Church Street— 

EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: March 

17, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications by 

relocating specific surveillance 

frequencies to a licensee-controlled 

program with the implementation of 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04–10, 

‘‘Risk-Informed Technical Specification 

Initiative 5B, Risk-Informed Method for 

Control of Surveillance Frequencies.’’ 

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 any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change relocates the 

specified frequencies for periodic 

surveillance requirements to licensee control 

under a new SFCP [Surveillance Frequency 

Control Program]. Surveillance frequencies 

are not an initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The systems and 

components required by the technical 

specifications for which the surveillance 

frequencies are relocated are still required to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54394 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for 

the surveillance requirements, and be 

capable of performing any mitigation 

function assumed in the accident analysis. 

As a result, the consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents result from 

utilizing the proposed change. The changes 

do not involve a physical alteration of the 

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

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. In addition, the changes do not 

impose any new or different requirements. 

The changes do not alter assumptions made 

in the safety analysis. The proposed changes 

are consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions and current plant operating 

practice. 

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 the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The design, operation, testing methods, 

and acceptance criteria for systems, 

structures, and components (SSCs), specified 

in applicable codes and standards (or 

alternatives approved for use by the NRC 

[Nuclear Regulatory Commission] will 

continue to be met as described in the plant 

licensing basis (including the final safety 

analysis report and bases to TS [Technical 

Specification]), since these are not affected 

by changes to the surveillance frequencies. 

Similarly, there is no impact to safety 

analysis acceptance criteria as described in 

the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a 

change in the relocated surveillance 

frequency, Duke [Duke Energy Carolinas, 

LLC] will perform a probabilistic risk 

evaluation using the guidance contained in 

NRC approved NEI 04–10, Rev. 1 in 

accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI [Nuclear 

Energy Institute] 04–10, Rev. 1, methodology 

provides reasonable acceptance guidelines 

and methods for evaluating the risk increase 

of proposed changes to surveillance 

frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 

1.177. 

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: Lara S. Nichols, 

Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Corporation, 526 South Church Street— 

EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: May 6, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications to 

support 24-month fuel cycle operations. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment changes the 

surveillance frequency from 18 months to 24 

months for Surveillance Requirements in the 

Technical Specifications that are normally a 

function of the refueling interval. 

Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 would allow 

a maximum surveillance interval of 30 

months for these surveillances. Duke 

Energy’s [Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC] 

evaluations have shown that the reliability of 

protective instrumentation and equipment 

will be preserved for the maximum allowable 

surveillance interval. 

The proposed change does not involve any 

change to the design or functional 

requirements of the associated systems. That 

is, the proposed Technical Specification (TS) 

change neither degrades the performance of, 

nor increases the challenges to any safety 

systems assumed to function in the plant 

safety analysis. The proposed change will not 

give rise to any increase in operation power 

level, fuel operating limits or effluents. The 

proposed change does not affect any accident 

precursors since no accidents previously 

evaluated relate to the frequency of 

surveillance testing and the revision to the 

frequency does not introduce any accident 

initiators. The proposed change does not 

impact the usefulness of the Surveillance 

Requirements (SRs) in evaluating the 

operability of required systems and 

components or the manner in which the 

surveillances are performed. 

In addition, evaluation of the proposed TS 

change demonstrates that the availability of 

equipment and systems required to prevent 

or mitigate the radiological consequences of 

an accident is not significantly affected 

because of the availability of redundant 

systems and equipment or the high reliability 

of the equipment. Since the impact on the 

systems is minimal, it is concluded that the 

overall impact on the plant safety analysis is 

negligible. 

Furthermore, an historical review of 

surveillance test results and associated 

maintenance records indicates there is no 

evidence of any failure that would invalidate 

the above conclusions. Therefore, the 

proposed TS change does not significantly 

increase the probability or consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not require 

a change to the plant design nor the mode of 

plant operation. No new or different 

equipment is being installed. No installed 

equipment is being operated in a different 

manner. As a result, no new failure modes 

are being introduced. In addition, the 

proposed change does not impact the 

usefulness of the SRs in evaluating the 

operability of required systems and 

components or the manner in which the 

surveillances are performed. Furthermore, an 

historical review of surveillance test results 

and associated maintenance records indicates 

there is no evidence of any failure that would 

invalidate the above conclusions. Therefore, 

the implementation of the proposed change 

will not create the possibility for an accident 

of a new or different type than previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment changes the 

surveillance frequency from 18 months to 24 

months for Surveillance Requirements in the 

Technical Specifications that are normally a 

function of the refueling interval. 

Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 would allow 

a maximum surveillance interval of 30 

months for these surveillances. Although the 

proposed change will result in an increase in 

the interval between surveillance tests, the 

impact on system availability is small based 

on other, more frequent testing that is 

performed, the existence of redundant 

systems and equipment or overall system 

reliability. There is no evidence of any timedependent failures that would impact the 

availability of the systems. The proposed 

change does not significantly impact the 

condition or performance of structures, 

systems and components relied upon for 

accident mitigation. This change does not 

alter the existing TS allowable values or 

analytical limits. The existing operating 

margin between plant conditions and actual 

plant setpoints is not significantly reduced 

due to these changes. The assumptions and 

results in any safety analyses are not 

significantly impacted. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in 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: Lara S. Nichols, 

Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Corporation, 526 South Church Street— 

EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 54395 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit No.1, DeWitt County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: June 4, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

remove a time-related item from 

Technical Specifications (TS) 3.6.5.1, 

‘‘Drywell,’’ and corrects typographical 

errors introduced into the TS in 

previous license amendments. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration: As required by 

10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 

of no significant hazards consideration 

is presented below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The initial conditions and methodologies 

used in the accident analyses remain 

unchanged. The proposed changes do not 

change or alter the design assumptions for 

the systems or components used to mitigate 

the consequences of an accident. Therefore, 

accident analyses results are not impacted. 

All changes proposed by EGC in this 

amendment request are administrative in 

nature, and include the removal [of] a timerelated requirement that has been satisfied 

and the correction of typographical-type 

administrative errors. There are no physical 

changes to the facilities, nor any changes to 

the station operating procedures, limiting 

conditions for operation, or limiting safety 

system settings. 

Based on the above discussion, the 

proposed changes do 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 previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

None of the proposed changes affect the 

design or operation of any system, structure, 

or component in the plant. The safety 

functions of the related structures, systems, 

or components are not changed in any 

manner, nor is the reliability of any structure, 

system, or component reduced by the revised 

surveillance or testing requirements. The 

changes do not affect the manner by which 

the facility is operated and do not change any 

facility design feature, structure, system, or 

component. No new or different type of 

equipment will be installed. Since there is no 

change to the facility or operating 

procedures, and the safety functions and 

reliability of structures, systems, or 

components are not affected, the proposed 

changes do not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

Based on this evaluation, the proposed 

changes do not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the TS are 

administrative in nature and have no impact 

on the margin of safety of any of the TS. 

There is no impact on safety limits or 

limiting safety system settings. The changes 

do not affect any plant safety parameters or 

setpoints. 

Based on this evaluation, 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: Robert D. Carlson. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, 

California 

Date of amendment requests: August 

16, 2010. 

Description of amendment requests: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Completion Time of 

Condition A of Technical Specification 

3.8.1, ‘‘AC [Alternating Current] 

Sources—Operating,’’ on a one-time 

basis to allow a Completion Time of 10 

days. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This proposed Technical Specification 

amendment provides a one-time per train 

extension of the Completion Time of 

Condition A of Technical Specification 3.8.1, 

‘‘AC Sources—Operating.’’ Condition A will 

be revised on a one-time basis to allow a 

Completion Time of 10 days. This one-time 

change would be used once on each train on 

each unit. The revised Completion Time 

accommodates maintenance which is to be 

performed on the 4.16 kV [kilo volt] Class 1E 

breaker cubicles on both units to replace 

cracked bottle (bushing) flanges. The bottle 

flange replacement requires extensive work 

and cannot be completed within the existing 

72-hour (3-day) Completion Time. 

The consequences associated with 

extending the Completion Time by 7 days 

have been evaluated and there is no 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The minimum requirements of 10 CFR 50 

Appendix A, GDC [General Design Criteria] 

17 with the alternate preferred power source 

circuit unavailable to one of the two 

redundant 4.16 kV Class 1E buses at a time 

will continue to be met. 

Further, the additional time to effect 

repairs for the bottles will allow for full 

inspection and replacement of any degraded 

condition in a timely manner with the 

minimum impact to safety. 

Consequently, this change does not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The request for this one-time per train 

Technical Specification change involves an 

extension of the Completion Time for 

Technical Specification 3.8.1, Required 

Action A.2, associated with restoring 

compliance with the Technical Specification. 

The proposed change will not physically 

alter the present plant configuration nor 

adversely affect how the plant is currently 

operated. The plant configuration that would 

result from use of the revised Completion 

Time is currently allowed by existing 

Technical Specifications, only for a shorter 

duration. This Completion Time change does 

not create a new or different kind of accident 

from any kind of accident previously 

evaluated. 

Consequently, there is no possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident due to this 

change. 

3. Does the proposed change involve 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

This proposed Technical Specification 

amendment provides a one-time per train 

extension of the Completion Time of 

Condition A of Technical Specification 3.8.1, 

‘‘AC Sources—Operating.’’ Condition A will 

be revised on a one-time basis to allow a 

Completion Time of 10 days. This one-time 

change would be used once on each train on 

each unit. The revised Completion Time 

accommodates maintenance which is to be 

performed on the 4.16 kV Class 1E breaker 

cubicles on both units to replace cracked 

bottle (bushing) flanges. The bottle flanges 

replacement requires extensive work and 

cannot be completed within the existing 72- 

hour (3-day) Completion Time. 

The minimum requirements of 10 CFR 50 

Appendix A, GDC 17 with the alternate 

preferred power source circuit unavailable to 

one of the two redundant 4.16 kV Class 1E 

buses at a time continues to be met. 

Further, the additional time to effect 

repairs for the bottles will allow for full 

inspection and replacement of any degraded 

condition in a timely manner with the 

minimum impact to safety. 

Consequently, there is no significant 

reduction in a margin of safety due to this 

change. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54396 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

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: Douglas K. 

Porter, Esquire, Southern California 

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

(VEPCO), Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50– 

281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2 (Surry 1 and 2), Surry County, 

Virginia 

Date of amendment request: May 6, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

VEPCO proposes a change to the Surry 

1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS) to 

update the cumulative core burnup 

applicability limit Effective Full Power 

Years (EFPY) for Reactor Coolant 

System (RCS) Heatup and Cooldown 

Pressure/Temperature (P/T) Limits, Low 

Temperature Overpressure Protection 

System (LTOPS) Setpoint, and LTOPS 

Enabling Temperature (T-enable). 

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 change involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the Surry 

Units 1 and 2 TS RCS Heatup and Cooldown 

Limitations figures to reflect an increase in 

the cumulative core burnup applicability 

limit to 48 EFPY. The existing Surry TS RCS 

P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoint, and T-enable 

value remain valid and conservative for 

cumulative core burnups up to 48 EFPY, thus 

increasing the cumulative core burnup 

applicability limit for RCS P/T Limits, 

LTOPS Setpoints and LTOPS T-enable to 48 

EFPY has no bearing on the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. These evaluations address the 

LTOPS design basis mass addition accident 

(inadvertent charging pump start), heat 

addition accident (Reactor Coolant Pump 

(RCP) start with a secondary-to-primary 

temperature difference of 50°F) and 

Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) events, the 

analysis of which is covered by 10 CFR 

50.61. The increased cumulative core burnup 

applicability limit is accomplished through 

application of improved analytical margins 

provided by Topical Report BAW–2308, 

Revision 2–A, ‘‘Initial RTNDT of Linde 80 

Weld Materials,’’ which was approved by the 

NRC in March 2008 for use in plant-specific 

applications. Dominion assessed the effect of 

the use of the analytical margins and 

determined that the existing TS limits (RCS 

P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoints and LTOPS Tenable) governing reactor vessel integrity 

remain valid and conservative for cumulative 

core burnups up to 48 EFPY. No changes to 

plant systems, structures or components are 

proposed, and no new operating modes are 

established. Furthermore, plant operating 

limits and setpoints are not being changed. 

Therefore, there is no increase in the 

probability or consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the change create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No changes to plant operating conditions, 

operating limits or setpoints are being 

proposed and no changes to plant systems, 

structures or components are being 

implemented. The existing Surry TS RCS 

P/T Limits, LTOPS Setpoint, and T-enable 

value remain valid and conservative for 

cumulative core burnups up to 48 EFPY. 

Analyses supporting the increased 

cumulative core burnup applicability limit 

were performed in accordance with 

applicable regulatory guidance and confirm 

that design functions (i.e., ensuring that 

combined pressure and thermal stresses 

under normal operation heatup and 

cooldown conditions and under design basis 

accident conditions at low temperature) are 

maintained. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not create the possibility of any accident 

or malfunction of a different type previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the change involve a significant 

reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The increased cumulative core burnup 

applicability limit is accomplished through 

application of improved analytical margins 

provided by Topical Report BAW–2308, 

Revision 2–A, which was approved by the 

NRC in March 2008 for use in plant-specific 

applications. Dominion [VEPCO] assessed 

the effect of the use of the analytical margins 

and determined that the existing TS P/T 

Limits, LTOPS Setpoints, and LTOPS 

T-enable governing reactor vessel integrity 

remain valid and conservative for cumulative 

core burnups up to 48 EFPY. No changes to 

plant systems, structures or components are 

proposed, and no new operating modes are 

established. Furthermore, plant operating 

limits and setpoints are not being changed. 

Consequently, the existing TS P/T Limit 

curves, LTOPS Setpoint, and LTOPS 

T-enable value provide acceptable margin to 

vessel fracture under both normal operation 

and LTOPS design basis (mass addition and 

heat addition) accident conditions for 

cumulative core burnups up to 48 EFPY. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

result in 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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

St., RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

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

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for A Hearing in 

connection with these actions was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and 

(3) the Commission’s related letter, 

Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 54397 

Reference staff at 1–(800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Duke Power Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina; Duke 

Power Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50– 

369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina; Duke Power 

Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee 

Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of application of amendments: 

September 30, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications to allow testing 

containment spray nozzles for nozzle 

blockage following activities which 

could result in nozzle blockage, rather 

than a fixed periodic basis. Currently 

the testing for nozzle blockage is 

performed every 10 years. 

Date of issuance: August 24, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 261 and 256. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments 

revised the licenses and technical 

specifications. 

Amendment Nos.: 259 and 239. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the licenses and technical 

specifications. 

Amendment Nos.: 369, 371, and 370. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: 

Amendments revised the licenses and 

technical specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 10828). 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 24, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois; Docket 

Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad Cities 

Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Rock Island County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 28, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated February 5 and June 2, 

2010. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise Technical 

Specification 3.4.5, ‘‘RCS Leakage 

Detection Instrumentation,’’ at each site 

to support implementation of an 

alternate method of verifying that 

leakage in the drywell is within limits. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 235 and 228, 247 

and 242. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–19, DPR–25, DPR–29 and 

DPR–30. The amendments revised the 

Technical Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 3, 2009 (74 FR 

56886). The February 5 and June 2, 

2010, supplements contained clarifying 

information and did not change the NRC 

staff’s initial proposed finding of no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of application for amendments: 

December 28, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated April 19, April 23, and 

June 17, 2010. 

Brief description of amendments: 

These amendments revise the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications to reflect an increase in 

the rated thermal power from 1650 

megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1677 MWt 

(1.64 percent increase). The increase is 

based upon increased feedwater flow 

measurement accuracy achieved by 

using high-accuracy Caldon 

CheckPlusTM Leading Edge Flow Meter 

ultrasonic flow measurement 

instrumentation. 

Date of issuance: August 17, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 197, 186. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised 

the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26291). 

The supplemental letters contained 

clarifying information and did not 

change the initial no significant hazards 

consideration determination, and did 

not expand the scope of the original 

Federal Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–272, 

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 

No. 1, Salem County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

September 21, 2009, as supplemented 

on February 24, 2010. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment revises Technical 

Specification (TS) 6.8.4.f, ‘‘Primary 

Containment Leakage Rate Testing 

Program,’’ to allow a one-time extension 

of the Type A integrated leak rate test 

(ILRT) interval from 10 to 15 years. 

Specifically, the amendment requires 

that the next Type A ILRT be performed 

no later than May 7, 2016. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No.: 296. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

70: The amendment revised the TSs and 

the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 17, 2009 (74 FR 

59262). 

The letter dated February 24, 2010, 

provided clarifying information that did 

not change the initial proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination or expand the application 

beyond the scope of the original Federal 

Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 

and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 23, 2009, as supplemented 

on December 21, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revise the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Delete TS 

4.0.5, which pertains to surveillance 

requirements for inservice inspection 

(ISI) and inservice testing (IST) of 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components; (2) 

add a new TS for the IST Program to 

Section 6.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ 

of the TSs; and (3) change TSs that 

currently reference TS 4.0.5 to reference 

the IST Program or ISI Program, as 

applicable. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

Date of issuance: August 20, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 297 and 279. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

70 and DPR–75: The amendments 

revised the TSs and the Facility 

Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 29, 2009 (74 FR 

68871). 

The letter dated December 21, 2009, 

provided clarifying information that did 

not change the initial proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination or expand the application 

beyond the scope of the original Federal 

Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 20, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and Final 

Determination of No Significant 

Hazards Consideration and 

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent 

Public Announcement or Emergency 

Circumstances) 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application for the 

amendment complies with the 

standards and requirements of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations. The Commission has 

made appropriate findings as required 

by the Act and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, 

which are set forth in the license 

amendment. 

Because of exigent or emergency 

circumstances associated with the date 

the amendment was needed, there was 

not time for the Commission to publish, 

for public comment before issuance, its 

usual Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination, and Opportunity for a 

Hearing. 

For exigent circumstances, the 

Commission has either issued a Federal 

Register notice providing opportunity 

for public comment or has used local 

media to provide notice to the public in 

the area surrounding a licensee’s facility 

of the licensee’s application and of the 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

The Commission has applied the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made 

a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The basis for this 

determination is contained in the 

documents related to this action. 

Accordingly, the amendments have 

been issued and made effective as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the application for 

amendment, (2) the amendment to 

Facility Operating License, and (3) the 

Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment, as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

The Commission is also offering an 

opportunity for a hearing with respect to 

the issuance of the amendment. Within 

60 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, any person(s) whose interest 

may be affected by this action may file 

a request for a hearing and a petition to 

intervene with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license. Requests for a hearing 

and a petition for leave to intervene 

shall be filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 

and electronically on the Internet at the 

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

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there 

are problems in accessing the document, 

contact the PDR Reference staff at 

1 (800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by 

e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 54399 

1To the extent that the applications contain 

attachments and supporting documents that are not 

publicly available because they are asserted to 

contain safeguards or proprietary information, 

petitioners desiring access to this information 

should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel 

and discuss the need for a protective order. 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/ 

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. The 

petition must include sufficient 

information to show that a genuine 

dispute exists with the applicant on a 

material issue of law or fact.1

Contentions shall be limited to matters 

within the scope of the amendment 

under consideration. The contention 

must be one which, if proven, would 

entitle the petitioner to relief. A 

requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy 

these requirements with respect to at 

least one contention will not be 

permitted to participate as a party. 

Each contention shall be given a 

separate numeric or alpha designation 

within one of the following groups: 

1. Technical—Primarily concerns/ 

issues relating to technical and/or 

health and safety matters discussed or 

referenced in the applications. 

2. Environmental—Primarily 

concerns/issues relating to matters 

discussed or referenced in the 

environmental analysis for the 

applications. 

3. Miscellaneous—Does not fall into 

one of the categories outlined above. 

As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two 

or more petitioners/requestors seek to 

co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/ 

requestors shall jointly designate a 

representative who shall have the 

authority to act for the petitioners/ 

requestors with respect to that 

contention. If a requestor/petitioner 

seeks to adopt the contention of another 

sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the 

requestor/petitioner who seeks to adopt 

the contention must either agree that the 

sponsoring requestor/petitioner shall act 

as the representative with respect to that 

contention, or jointly designate with the 

sponsoring requestor/petitioner a 

representative who shall have the 

authority to act for the petitioners/ 

requestors with respect to that 

contention. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. Since the Commission has 

made a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, if a hearing is 

requested, it will not stay the 

effectiveness of the amendment. Any 

hearing held would take place while the 

amendment is in effect. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule 

(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 

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

e-submittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ 

e-submittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

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 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. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket No. 50–425, Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Unit 2, Burke County, 

Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

18, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment revises Technical 

Specifications (TS) 3.7.14, ‘‘Engineered 

Safety Features (ESF) Room Cooler and 

Safety-Related Chiller System’’ such 

that, with one safety-related chiller train 

inoperable, the allowed completion time 

for Condition A is extended from 72 

hours to 14 days, on a one-time-only 

basis. The 14 day allowable outage time 

will allow time to repair the Unit 2 

A-train ESF chiller. 

Date of issuance: August 19, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 139. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

81: Amendment revises the technical 

specifications. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): No. The 

Commission’s related evaluation of the 

amendment, finding of emergency 

circumstances, State consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated August 19, 

2010. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H. 

Domby, Troutman Sanders, 

NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 

Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 

30308–2216. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of August 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21946 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 52–040–COL and 52–041– 

COL; ASLBP No. 10–903–02–COL–BD01] 

Florida Power and Light Company; 

Establishment of Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board 

Pursuant to delegation by the 

Commission dated December 29, 1972, 

published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 

28,710 (1972), and the Commission’s 

regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 

2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, 

notice is hereby given that an Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is 

being established to preside over the 

following proceeding: 

Florida Power & Light Company 

(Turkey Point Units 6 and 7) 

This proceeding concerns petitions to 

intervene submitted (1) by the Village of 

Pinecrest, Florida, (2) by Citizens for 

Safe Energy, Inc., and (3) jointly by 

Mark Oncavage, Dan Kipnis, Southern 

Alliance for Clean Energy, and National 

Parks Conservation Association. These 

petitions were submitted in response to 

a June 18, 2010 Notice of Hearing and 

Opportunity to Petition for Leave to 

Intervene (75 FR 34,777). Petitioners 

challenge the application filed by 

Florida Power & Light Company 

pursuant to Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52 

for a combined license for Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7, to be located in 

Homestead, Florida. 

The Board is comprised of the 

following administrative judges: 

E. Roy Hawkens, Chair, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Dr. Michael F. Kennedy, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Dr. William C. Burnett, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

All correspondence, documents, and 

other materials shall be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, 

which the NRC promulgated in August 

2007 (72 FR 49,139). 

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st 

day of August 2010. 

E. Roy Hawkens, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22178 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Submission of Information Collections 

for OMB Review; Comment Request; 

Payment of Premiums; Termination 

Premium 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of request for extension 

of OMB approval. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1