[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54390-54400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21946]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abc3cecad9c2c5cc85cfc4c8c0cedfebc5d9c885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4aca1a5b6adaaa3eaa0aba7afa1b084aab6a7eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request 
(1) A digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance 
in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web 
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser 
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bc6d8c3cfa5d9eef8e4fef9e8eecbe5f9e8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c08d938884ee92a5b3afb5b2a3a580aeb2a3eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted

[[Page 54392]]

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of 
the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) 
courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of 
the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are 
responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing 
is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in 
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service 
upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A 
presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-
Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the 
presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting 
the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants 
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as 
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their 
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of 
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited 
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer 
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions 
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from 
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8a8bcaaf6aabdabb7adaabbbd98b6aabbf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cbbbafb9e5b9aeb8a4beb9a8ae8ba5b9a8e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 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 
(in-plant) 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

[[Page 54394]]

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 time-
dependent 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.

[[Page 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 time-
related 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.


[[Page 54396]]


    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[deg]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 RT<INF>NDT</INF> 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 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. 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

[[Page 54397]]

Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d5d495f035f485e42585f4e486d435f4e034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a0a1e0854081f09150f08191f3a140819541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 CheckPlus<SUP>TM</SUP> 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.

[[Page 54398]]

    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b5b4f5905594e58445e59484e6b455948054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="740410065a0611071b01061711341a06175a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4a4b0a6faa6b1a7bba1a6b7b194baa6b7fab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="106074623e6275637f65627375507e62733e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>. 
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

[[Page 54399]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4aca1a5b6adaaa3eaa0aba7afa1b084aab6a7eaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d65686c7f64636a2369626e6668794d637f6e236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request 
(1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance 
in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web 
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser 
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID

[[Page 54400]]

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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca8799828ee498afb9a5bfb8a9af8aa4b8a9e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ec3ddc6caa0dcebfde1fbfcedebcee0fceda0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First-class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants 
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as 
Social Security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their 
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of 
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited 
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>