Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64359 

be notified of the disqualification, to 

request and receive the waiver packet, 

to obtain employer support and 

complete the waiver request, to do any 

follow-up testing, to return the waiver 

request to the contractor plus any 

follow-up information, for the 

contractor to get the completed packet 

to the National Science Foundation, and 

for NSF to make and promulgate a 

decision. 

Respondents: All individuals 

deploying to the Antarctic under the 

auspices of the United States Antarctic 

Program and certain Arctic areas must 

complete these forms. There are 

approximately 3,000 submissions per 

year, with a small percentage (c.3%) 

under the age of 40 who provide annual 

submissions but with less information. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Form: Responses range from 2 to 

approximately 238 responses. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 28,728 hours; fewer if the 

individual has previously deployed and 

saved his or her prior year’s data for 

future use. 

Frequency of Responses: Physical 

qualifications are valid for 12 months. 

Individuals must complete the forms 

annually or not earlier than six months 

prior to their anticipated deployment 

date, if they are infrequent travelers. 

Depending on individual medical status 

some persons may require additional 

laboratory results to be current within 

two to six-weeks of anticipated 

deployment. 

Comments: Comments are invited on 

(a) whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques, or other forms of 

information technology. 

Dated: October 14, 2010. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26249 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0327] 

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 September 

23, 2010 to October 6, 2010. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

October 5, 2010, (75 FR 61521). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64360 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

date, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/ 

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/ 

petitioner to relief. A requestor/ 

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 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 

E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC’s 

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

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

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through EIE, users will be 

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

information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

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

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64361 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

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

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use E-Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E-Filing no 

longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

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

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, or the presiding 

officer. Participants are requested not to 

include personal privacy information, 

such as social security numbers, home 

addresses, or home phone numbers in 

their filings, unless an NRC regulation 

or other law requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the presiding 

officer that the petition or request 

should be granted or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

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. 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, 

and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of amendment request: August 

27, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

methodology in the feedwater line break 

with loss of offsite power and single 

failure event (FWLB/LOP/SF) analysis 

summarized in the Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report. The revision would 

change the credited operator action time 

to 20 minutes from 30 minutes to 

control the pressurizer level. 

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 change in the credited 

operator action time to 20 minutes from 30 

minutes does not change the probability of a 

FWLB/LOP/SF event as the operator actions 

are credited after the start of the event. 

This change in operator action time does 

not adversely affect accident initiators or 

precursors, the ability of structures, systems, 

and components (SSCs) to perform their 

intended functions to mitigate the 

consequences of an initiating event within 

the assumed acceptance limits, or 

radiological release assumptions used in 

evaluating the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change in the credited 

operator action time to 20 minutes from 30 

minutes does not involve any design or 

physical changes to the facility or any SSC 

of that facility. The proposed change does not 

create any new failure modes or adversely 

affect the interaction between any structure, 

system or component. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change in the credited 

operator action time to 20 minutes from 30 

minutes does not alter the manner in which 

safety limits or limiting safety system settings 

are determined. No changes to instrument/ 

system actuation setpoints are involved. The 

safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 

impacted by this change and the proposed 

change will not permit plant operation in a 

configuration outside the design basis. The 

assumed 20 minutes for operator action is 

consistent with Industry and NRC guidance. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on that 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the request 

for amendments involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Michael G. 

Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. 

Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, 

Arizona 85072–2034. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Florida Power and Light Company 

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

Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: August 5, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise technical specification (TS) 5.5.1 

Fuel Storage—Criticality, to include 

new spent fuel storage patterns that 

account for both the increase in fuel 

maximum enrichment from 4.5 weight 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64362 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

percentage (wt%) U–235 to 5.0 wt% U– 

235 and the impact on the fuel of higher 

power operation proposed under the 

Extended Power Uprate (EPU) project. 

Although the fuel storage has been 

analyzed at the higher fuel enrichment 

in the new criticality analysis, the fuel 

enrichment limit of 4.5 wt% U–235 

specified in TS 5.5.1 will not be 

changed under this license amendment 

request. The proposed TS changes and 

a new supporting criticality analysis are 

being submitted to revise the current 

licensing basis analysis for both new 

fuel and spent fuel pool storage. 

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? 

No. The proposed amendments do not 

change or modify the fuel, fuel handling 

processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel 

assemblies that may be stored in the spent 

fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation rate, 

or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup 

system. The proposed amendment was 

evaluated for impact on the following 

previously evaluated events and accidents: 

a. A fuel handling accident (FHA), 

b. A cask drop accident, 

c. A fuel mispositioning event, 

d. A spent fuel pool boron dilution event, 

e. A seismic event, and 

f. A loss of spent fuel pool cooling event. 

Although the proposed amendment will 

require increased handling of the fuel, the 

probability of a FHA is not significantly 

increased because the implementation of the 

proposed amendment will employ the same 

equipment and process to handle fuel 

assemblies that is currently used. Also, tests 

have confirmed that the Metamic inserts can 

be installed and removed without damaging 

the host fuel assemblies. The FHA 

radiological dose consequences associated 

with fuel enrichment at this level were 

addressed in LAR [license amendment 

request] 196 on Alternative Source Term 

implementation at EPU conditions and 

remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed 

amendments do not significantly increase the 

probability or consequences of a FHA. 

The proposed amendments do not increase 

the probability of dropping a fuel transfer 

cask because they do not introduce any new 

heavy loads to the SFP and do not affect 

heavy load handling processes. Also, the 

insertion of Metamic rack inserts does not 

increase the consequences of the cask drop 

accident because the radiological source term 

of that accident is developed from a nonmechanistically derived quantity of damaged 

fuel stored in the spent fuel pool. Therefore, 

the proposed amendments do not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of a cask drop accident. 

Operation in accordance with the proposed 

amendment will not change the probability 

of a fuel mispositioning event because fuel 

movement will continue to be controlled by 

approved fuel handling procedures. These 

procedures continue to require identification 

of the initial and target locations for each fuel 

assembly that is moved. The consequences of 

a fuel mispositioning event are not changed 

because the reactivity analysis demonstrates 

that the same subcriticality criteria and 

requirements continue to be met for the 

worst-case fuel mispositioning event. 

Operation in accordance with the proposed 

amendment will not change the probability 

of a boron dilution event because the systems 

and events that could affect spent fuel pool 

soluble boron are unchanged. The 

consequences of a boron dilution event are 

unchanged because the proposed amendment 

reduces the soluble boron requirement below 

the currently required value and the 

maximum possible water volume displaced 

by the inserts is an insignificant fraction of 

the total spent fuel pool water volume. 

Operation in accordance with the proposed 

amendment will not change the probability 

of a seismic event. The consequences of a 

seismic event are not significantly increased 

because the forcing functions for seismic 

excitation are not increased and because the 

mass of storage racks with Metamic inserts is 

not appreciably increased. Seismic analyses 

demonstrate adequate stress levels in the 

storage racks when inserts are installed. 

Operation in accordance with the proposed 

amendment will not change the probability 

of a loss of SFP cooling event because the 

systems and events that could affect SFP 

cooling are unchanged. The consequences are 

not significantly increased because there are 

no changes in the SFP heat load or SFP 

cooling systems, structures or components. 

Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate 

that the current design requirements and 

criteria continue to be met with the Metamic 

inserts installed. 

Therefore, 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 accident previously 

evaluated? 

No. The proposed amendments do not 

change or modify the fuel, fuel handling 

processes, fuel racks, number of fuel 

assemblies that may be stored in the pool, 

decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel 

pool cooling and cleanup system. The effects 

of operating with the proposed amendment 

are listed below. The proposed amendments 

were evaluated for the potential of each effect 

to create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident: 

a. Addition of inserts to the fuel storage 

racks, 

b. New storage patterns, 

c. Additional weight from the inserts, 

d. Insert movement above fuel, and 

e. Displacement of fuel pool water by the 

inserts. 

Each insert will be placed between a fuel 

assembly and the storage cell wall, taking up 

some of the space available on two sides of 

the fuel assembly. Tests confirm that the 

insert can be installed and removed without 

damaging the fuel assembly. Analyses 

demonstrate that the presence of the inserts 

does not adversely affect spent fuel cooling, 

seismic capability, or subcriticality. The 

aluminum (alloy 6061) and boron carbide 

materials of construction have been shown to 

be compatible with nuclear fuel, storage 

racks and spent fuel pool environments, and 

generate no adverse material interactions. 

Therefore, placing the inserts into the spent 

fuel pool storage racks cannot cause a new 

or different kind of accident. 

Operation with the proposed fuel storage 

patterns will not create a new or different 

kind of accident because fuel movement will 

continue to be controlled by approved fuel 

handling procedures. These procedures 

continue to require identification of the 

initial and target locations for each fuel 

assembly that is moved. There are no changes 

in the criteria or design requirements 

pertaining to fuel storage safety, including 

subcriticality requirements, and analyses 

demonstrate that the proposed storage 

patterns meet these requirements and criteria 

with adequate margins. Therefore, the 

proposed storage patterns cannot cause a new 

or different kind of accident. 

Operation with the added weight of the 

Metamic inserts will not create a new or 

different accident. The net effect of the 

adding the maximum number of inserts is to 

add less than one percent to the weight of the 

loaded racks. Furthermore, the analyses of 

the racks with Metamic inserts installed 

demonstrate that the stress levels in the rack 

modules continue to be considerably less 

than allowable stress limits. Therefore, the 

added weight from the inserts cannot cause 

a new or different kind of accident. 

Operation with insert movement above 

stored fuel will not create a new or different 

kind of accident. The insert with its handling 

tool weighs considerably less than the weight 

of a single fuel assembly. Single fuel 

assemblies are routinely moved safely over 

fuel assemblies and the same level of safety 

in design and operation will be maintained 

when moving the inserts. Furthermore, the 

effect of a dropped insert to block the top of 

a storage cell has been evaluated in thermalhydraulic analyses. Therefore, the movement 

of inserts cannot cause a new or different 

kind of accident. 

Whereas the installed rack inserts will 

displace a very small fraction of the fuel pool 

water volume and impose a very small 

reduction in operator response time to 

previously-evaluated SFP accidents, the 

reduction will not promote a new or different 

kind of accident. Also, displacement of water 

along two sides of a stored fuel assembly may 

have some local reduction in the peripheral 

cooling flow; however, this effect would be 

small compared to the flow induced through 

the fuel assembly and would in no way 

promote a new or different kind of accident. 

The accidents and events previously 

analyzed and presented in the Boraflex 

Remedy and Alternative Source Term LARs 

remain bounding. Therefore, the proposed 

changes do not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64363 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in the margin of 

safety? 

No. The proposed change was evaluated 

for its effect on current margins of safety as 

they relate to criticality, structural integrity, 

and spent fuel heat removal capability. 

The margin of safety for subcriticality 

required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. 

New criticality analysis confirms that 

operation in accordance with the proposed 

amendment continues to meet the required 

subcriticality margins. 

The structural evaluations for the racks and 

spent fuel pool with Metamic inserts 

installed show that the rack and spent fuel 

pool are unimpaired by loading combinations 

during seismic motion, and there is no 

adverse seismic-induced interaction between 

the rack and Metamic inserts. 

The proposed change does not affect spent 

fuel heat generation or the spent fuel pool 

cooling systems. A conservative analysis 

indicates that the design basis requirements 

and criteria for spent fuel cooling continue to 

be met with the Metamic inserts in place, and 

displacing coolant. Thermal hydraulic 

analysis of the local effects of an installed 

rack insert blocking peripheral flow show a 

small increase in local water and fuel clad 

temperatures, but will remain within 

acceptable limits including no departure 

from nucleate boiling. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

Based on the above discussion, FPL has 

determined that the proposed change does 

not involve a significant hazards 

consideration. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, 

Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. 

Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408– 

0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

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 

Reference staff at 1–(800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, 

and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 

3, Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of application for amendment: 

September 28, 2009, as supplemented 

by letters dated June 24 and September 

3 and 24, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised Required Action 

A.1 of Technical Specification 3.8.7, 

‘‘Inverters—Operating,’’ for the Palo 

Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 

1, 2, and 3, by extending the Completion 

Time for restoration of an inoperable 

vital alternating current inverter from 24 

hours to 7 days. 

Date of issuance: September 29, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: Unit 1—180; Unit 

2—180; Unit 3—180. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The 

amendment revised the Operating 

Licenses and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR 

62833). The supplemental letters dated 

June 24 and September 3 and 24, 2010, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., 

Docket No. 50–414, Catawba Nuclear 

Station, Unit 2, York County, South 

Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 28, 2010, as supplemented by 

letter dated September 9, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.9 to exclude 

portions of the Steam Generator (SG) 

tube from periodic SG tube inspections 

and plugging or repair. In addition, 

reporting requirement changes were 

made to TS 5.6.8. 

Date of issuance: September 27, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to requiring the SGs to be operable 

at the completion of the End of Cycle 17 

Refueling Outage. 

Amendment No.: 257. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–52: Amendment revised the 

license and the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR 39977). 

The supplement dated September 9, 

2010, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64364 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 21, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 28 and September 2, 

2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised James A. FitzPatrick 

Technical Specification (TS) 2.0, ‘‘Safety 

Limits (SLs).’’ Specifically, TS 2.1.1.2 

replaced the listed safety limit 

minimum critical power ratio values of 

1.07 for two recirculation loop operation 

and 1.09 for single recirculation loop 

operation with new values of 1.08 and 

1.11, respectively. 

Date of issuance: September 27, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 299. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–59: The amendment revised 

the License and the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33841). 

The supplements dated July 28 and 

September 2, 2010, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generating Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 30, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated April 16, 2010, and August 

31, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Oyster Creek 

Technical Specifications to relocate a 

number of Surveillance Requirement 

frequencies to a licensee-controlled 

document. 

Date of issuance: September 27, 2010. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 276. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–16: The amendment revised 

the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 29, 2009 (74 FR 

68869). The supplements dated April 

16, 2010, and August 31, 2010, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50–277, 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

(PBAPS), Unit 2, York and Lancaster 

Counties, Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendments: 

May 27, 2010, as supplemented on July 

15, 2010, and August 25, 2010. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment modifies the PBAPS Unit 2 

Technical Specification (TS) Section 

2.1.1.2 to reflect revised Safety Limit 

Minimum Critical Power Ratio 

(SLMCPR) values for operating cycle 19. 

The SLMCPR analysis establishes 

SLMCPR values that will ensure that 

during normal operation and during 

abnormal operational transients, at least 

99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core 

do not experience transition boiling if 

the limit is not violated. 

Date of issuance: September 28, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 279. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–44: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43574). 

The supplements dated July 15, 2010, 

and August 25, 2010, clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the initial proposed 

no significant hazards consideration 

determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 

California 

Date of application for amendments: 

June 14, 2010, as supplemented on 

August 9, 2010. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the licensing basis, 

as described in the Final Safety Analysis 

Report Update, to include damping 

values for the seismic design and 

analysis of the integrated head assembly 

(IHA) that are consistent with the 

recommendations of Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 1.61, ‘‘Damping Values for Seismic 

Design of Nuclear Power Plants,’’ 

Revision 1. In addition, the RG 1.61, 

Revision 1, Table 1 note allowing the 

use of a ‘‘weighted average’’ for designbasis safe-shutdown earthquake 

damping values applicable to steel 

structures of different connection types 

will also be applied to determine the 

IHA design-basis operating-basis 

earthquake damping values. 

Date of issuance: September 29, 2010. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—208; Unit 

2—210. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

80 and DPR–82: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 27, 2010 (75 FR 44025). 

The supplemental letter dated August 9, 

2010, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

December 1, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 23, and August 19, 

2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changes the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Revise the 

required frequency of testing control rod 

scram times from ‘‘at least once per 120 

days of POWER OPERATION’’ to ‘‘at 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64365 

least once per 200 days of POWER 

OPERATION’’; (2) revise the evaluation 

methodology for control rod scram time 

tests; (3) establish a new category of 

operable but ‘‘slow’’ control rods; and (4) 

establish allowable limits for the 

number and distribution of ‘‘slow’’ rods. 

The changes are based, in part, on 

Nuclear Regulatory Commissionapproved TS Task Force (TSTF) change 

traveler TSTF–460, ‘‘Control Rod Scram 

Time Testing Frequency.’’ 

Date of issuance: September 27, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No.: 183. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

57: The amendment revised the TSs and 

the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 26, 2010 (75 FR 

4119). 

The letters dated July 23, and August 

19, 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 September 27, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

November 30, 2009, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 14, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment provides authorization to 

upgrade selected Emergency Action 

Levels based on Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) 99–01, ‘‘Methodology for 

Development of Emergency Action 

Levels,’’ Revision 5, dated February 

2008 using the guidance of NRC 

Regulatory Issue Summary 2003–18, 

Supplement 2, ‘‘Use of Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) 99–01, Methodology for 

Development of Emergency Action 

Levels.’’ 

Date of issuance: October 6, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No.: 111. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–18: Amendment revised the 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 9, 2010 (75 FR 

6411). 

The letter dated May 14, 2010, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, South Carolina Public 

Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395, 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 

No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 17, 2009, as supplemented on 

June 15, December 1, and December 23, 

2009, January 14, and July 16, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the technical 

specification changes and design-basis 

accident radiological consequence 

analyses to support implementation of 

alternative source term methodology, 

pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 

50.67, ‘‘Accident source term,’’ using the 

guidance described in Regulatory Guide 

1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source 

Terms for Evaluating Design-basis 

Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ 

Date of issuance: October 4, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment No.: 183. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–12: Amendment revises the 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 24, 2009 (74 FR 

12395). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, 

Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Surry County, Virginia 

Date of application for amendments: 

January 27, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated February 4 and April 29, 

2010. 

Brief Description of amendments: 

These amendments would increase each 

unit’s rated power (RP) level from 2546 

megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2587 MWt, 

and make Technical Specifications 

changes as necessary to support 

operation at the uprated power level. 

The proposed change is an increase in 

RP of approximately 1.6 percent. 

Date of issuance: September 28, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 269 and 268. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments 

change the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17447). 

The supplements provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand in the scope 

of the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 24, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: 

December 16, 2009 as supplemented by 

letter dated June 2, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the licensing basis 

for the approved fire protection program 

as described in the Wolf Creek 

Generating Station (WCGS) Updated 

Safety Analysis Report (USAR) to allow 

use of the fire-resistive cable for certain 

power and control cables associated 

with two motor-operated valves on 

Train B Component Cooling Water 

System. This is a deviation from certain 

technical commitments to Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, as 

described in Appendix 9.5E of the 

WCGS USAR. 

Date of issuance: September 30, 2010. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 189. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–42. The amendment revised 

the Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 10831). 

The supplemental letter dated June 2, 

2010, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64366 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, October 7, 

2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26152 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards 

In accordance with the purposes of 

Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic 

Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting 

on November 4–6, 2010, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The date of this meeting was previously 

published in the Federal Register on 

Monday, October 14, 2009, (74 FR 

52829–52830). 

Thursday, November 4, 2010, 

Conference Room T2–B1, Two White 

Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 

8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening 

Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 

(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make 

opening remarks regarding the conduct 

of the meeting. 

8:35 a.m.–10 a.m.: Standard Review 

Plan for Renewal of Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage Installation Licenses and 

Dry Cask Storage System Certificates of 

Compliance (Open)—The Committee 

will hear presentations by and hold 

discussions with representatives of the 

NRC staff regarding the Standard 

Review Plan for renewal of Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation Licenses 

and dry cask storage system Certificates 

of Compliance. 

10:15 a.m.–12 p.m.: Draft Final 

Revision 2 of NUREG–1801, ‘‘Generic 

Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report,’’ 

and NUREG–1800, ‘‘Standard Review 

Plan for Review of License Renewal 

Applications for Nuclear Power Plants’’ 

(Open)—The Committee will hear 

presentations by and hold discussions 

with representatives of the NRC staff 

regarding Draft Final Revision 2 of 

NUREG–1801, ‘‘Generic Aging Lessons 

Learned (GALL) Report,’’ and NUREG– 

1800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for Review 

of License Renewal Applications for 

Nuclear Power Plants.’’ 

1 p.m.–4 p.m.: Long-Term Core 

Cooling Approach for the Revised 

AP1000 Design (Open/Closed)—The 

Committee will hear presentations by 

and hold discussions with 

representatives of the NRC staff and 

Westinghouse regarding the long-term 

core cooling approach for the revised 

AP1000 design. 

Note: A portion of this session may be 

closed in order to discuss and protect 

information designated as proprietary by 

Westinghouse and its contractors pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). 

4:15 p.m.–5 p.m.: Discussion of 

Topics for Meeting With the 

Commission (Open)—The Committee 

will discuss the following topics in 

preparation for the meeting with the 

Commission: ABWR Aircraft Impact 

Assessment; 10 CFR 50.46(a), ‘‘RiskInformed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant 

Accident Technical Requirements;’’ 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility; 

ESBWR—Long-Term Core Cooling; and 

Design Acceptance Criteria. 

5:15 p.m.–7 p.m.: Preparation of 

ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee 

will discuss proposed ACRS reports on 

matters discussed during this meeting. 

Friday, November 5, 2010, Conference 

Room T2–B1, Two White Flint North, 

Rockville, Maryland 

8:30 a.m.–9 a.m.: Discussion of Topics 

for Meeting with the Commission 

(Open)—The Committee will continue 

the discussion of the topics in 

preparation for the meeting with the 

Commission. 

9:30 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: Meeting with 

the Commission (Open)—The 

Committee will meet with the 

Commission to discuss topics listed 

above. 

1:15 p.m.–2:45 p.m.: Future ACRS 

Activities/Report of the Planning and 

Procedures Subcommittee (Open/ 

Closed)—The Committee will discuss 

the recommendations of the Planning 

and Procedures Subcommittee regarding 

items proposed for consideration by the 

Full Committee during future ACRS 

Meetings, and matters related to the 

conduct of ACRS business, including 

anticipated workload and member 

assignments. [Note: A portion of this 

meeting may be closed pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552b (c)(2) and (6) to discuss 

organizational and personnel matters 

that relate solely to internal personnel 

rules and practices of ACRS, and 

information the release of which would 

constitute a clearly invasion of personal 

privacy.] 

2:45 p.m.–3 p.m.: Reconciliation of 

ACRS Comments and 

Recommendations (Open)—The 

Committee will discuss the responses 

from the NRC Executive Director for 

Operations to comments and 

recommendations included in recent 

ACRS reports and letters. 

3:15 p.m.—4:15 p.m.: Assessment of 

the Quality of Selected NRC Research 

Projects (Open)—The Committee will 

hold discussions with members of the 

ACRS Panels performing the quality 

assessment of the NRC research projects 

on: NUREG/CR–6947, ‘‘Human Factors 

Consideration with Respect to Emerging 

Technology in Nuclear Power Plants,’’ 

and NUREG/CR–6997, ‘‘Modeling a 

Digital Feedwater Control System Using 

Traditional Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment Methods.’’ 

4:15 p.m.–7 p.m.: Preparation of 

ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee 

will continue its discussion of proposed 

ACRS reports. 

Saturday, November 6, 2010, 

Conference Room T2–B1, Two White 

Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 

8:30 a.m.–1 p.m.: Preparation of 

ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee 

will continue its discussion of proposed 

ACRS reports. 

1 p.m.–1:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous 

(Open)—The Committee will continue 

its discussion related to the conduct of 

Committee activities and specific issues 

that were not completed during 

previous meetings. 

Procedures for the conduct of and 

participation in ACRS meetings were 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 14, 2009, (74 FR 52829–52830). 

In accordance with those procedures, 

oral or written views may be presented 

by members of the public, including 

representatives of the nuclear industry. 

Persons desiring to make oral statements 

should notify Ms. Ilka Berrios, 

Cognizant ACRS Staff (Telephone: 301– 

415–3179, E-mail: Ilka.Berrios@nrc.gov), 

five days before the meeting, if possible, 

so that appropriate arrangements can be 

made to allow necessary time during the 

meeting for such statements. In view of 

the possibility that the schedule for 

ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the 

Chairman as necessary to facilitate the 

conduct of the meeting, persons 

planning to attend should check with 

the Cognizant ACRS staff if such 

rescheduling would result in major 

inconvenience. 

Thirty-five hard copies of each 

presentation or handout should be 

provided 30 minutes before the meeting. 

In addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be emailed to the 

Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before 

meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be 

provided within this timeframe, 

presenters should provide the Cognizant 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES