Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 67399 

Federally registered lobbyist possesses 

unique or exceptional value to a board 

or commission? 

A12: The policy makes no provisions 

for waivers, and waivers will not be 

permitted under this policy. 

Preeta D. Bansal, 

OMB General Counsel and Senior Policy 

Advisor, Office of Management and Budget. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27621 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (10–144)] 

Performance Review Board, Senior 

Executive Service (SES) 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of Membership of SES 

Performance Review Board. 

SUMMARY: The Civil Service Reform Act 

of 1978, Public Law 95–454 (Section 

405) requires that appointments of 

individual members to the Performance 

Review Board (PRB) be published in the 

Federal Register. 

The National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration published a document 

in the Federal Register on October 12, 

2010, announcing membership of the 

Performance Review Board (PRB) and 

the Senior Executive Committee. In 

addition to the members previously 

announced, another member was added 

to the PRB, Associate Administrator for 

Independent Program and Cost 

Evaluation. 

Performance Review Board 

Chairperson, Chief of Staff, NASA 

Headquarters 

Executive Secretary, Director, Workforce 

Management and Development 

Division, NASA Headquarters 

Associate Administrator, NASA 

Headquarters 

Associate Deputy Administrator, NASA 

Headquarters 

Associate Administrator for Exploration 

Systems Mission Directorate, NASA 

Headquarters 

Associate Administrator for Space 

Operations Mission Directorate, 

NASA Headquarters 

Associate Administrator for Science 

Mission Directorate, NASA 

Headquarters 

Associate Administrator for Aeronautics 

Research Mission Directorate, NASA 

Headquarters 

Associate Administrator for Mission 

Support Directorate, NASA 

Headquarters 

Associate Administrator for Diversity 

and Equal Opportunity, NASA 

Headquarters 

Assistant Administrator for Human 

Capital Management, NASA 

Headquarters 

Associate Administrator for 

Independent Program and Cost 

Evaluation, NASA Headquarters 

Chief Engineer, NASA Headquarters 

General Counsel, NASA Headquarters 

Chief Technologist, NASA Headquarters 

Chief Scientist, NASA Headquarters 

Chief Information Officer, NASA 

Headquarters 

Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance, 

NASA Headquarters 

Director, Ames Research Center 

Director, Dryden Flight Research Center 

Director, Glenn Research Center 

Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Director, Johnson Space Center 

Director, Kennedy Space Center 

Director, Langley Research Center 

Director, Marshall Space Flight Center 

Director, Stennis Space Center 

Senior Executive Committee 

Chairperson, Deputy Administrator, 

NASA Headquarters 

Chair, Executive Resources Board, 

NASA Headquarters 

Chair, NASA Performance Review 

Board, NASA Headquarters 

Associate Administrator, NASA 

Headquarters 

Associate Deputy Administrator, NASA 

Headquarters 

Chief Information Officer, NASA 

Headquarters 

Charles F. Bolden, Jr., 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27551 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0336] 

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 October 7, 

2010 to October 20, 2010. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64359). 

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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 

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 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the requestor/ 

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/ 

petitioner to relief. A requestor/ 

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

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

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a 

digital ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

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

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

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

apply-certificates.html. System 

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

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

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

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 67401 

documents through EIE, users will be 

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

information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

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

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

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

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

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

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

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

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

Meta System Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

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

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, or the presiding 

officer. Participants are requested not to 

include personal privacy information, 

such as social security numbers, home 

addresses, or home phone numbers in 

their filings, unless an NRC regulation 

or other law requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

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

absent a determination by the presiding 

officer that the petition or request 

should be granted or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

license amendment application, see the 

application for amendment which is 

available for public inspection at the 

Commission’s PDR, located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area 

O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 

available records will be accessible from 

the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

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

adams.html. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, should contact the 

NRC PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397– 

4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 

(ANO–1), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: August 

24, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.4.6, 

‘‘RCS Loops—Mode 4,’’ TS 3.4.7, ‘‘RCS 

Loops—Mode 5, Loops Filled,’’ TS 3.4.8, 

‘‘RCS Loops—Mode 5, Loops Not 

Filled,’’ and TS 3.9.5, ‘‘Decay Heat 

Removal (DHR) and Coolant 

Circulation—Low Water Level,’’ to 

permit a greater time period for one of 

two required Reactor Coolant System 

(RCS) cooling loops (commonly known 

as Decay Heat Removal loop) cooling 

loops to be inoperable. The affected TSs 

are applicable in lower Modes of 

Operation (Modes 4, 5, and 6). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve any 

physical change to the plant and is unrelated 

to accident initiators. In Mode 4, the energy 

contained in the RCS is significantly reduced 

from that of power operations. In addition, 

RCS pressure can be raised or lowered to 

accommodate forced circulation using 

Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs) or operation 

of the Decay Heat Removal (DHR) system. 

Natural circulation also provides a core heat 

removal method via any available Steam 

Generator (SG). Several sources of secondary 

feedwater are, or could be made available to 

a required SG in support of forced circulation 

or natural circulation. Based on this 

information, any mitigation strategy which 

assumes use of these core cooling methods is 

not significantly affected by the proposed 

increase in the time in which one required 

train may be inoperable. 

No accidents associated with the reactor 

core or core cooling are postulated for Mode 

5. In Mode 6, the fuel handling accident 

(FHA) is the only postulated accident 

scenario. The proposed change has no 

bearing on the FHA from either an initiation 

aspect or with regard to accident 

consequences. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67402 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change only extends the 

period in which one of two required core 

heat removal methods may be unavailable. 

The proposed change involves no changes to 

the physical plant and is not associated with 

any accident initiator. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

As discussed above, the proposed change 

is unrelated to accident initiators and does 

not have a significant impact on the 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated in the ANO–1 Safety Analysis 

Report (SAR). The proposed change extends 

the time in which one of two required core 

heat removal methods may be unavailable. In 

most cases, more than one additional cooling 

method remains available. In addition, 

proceduralized administrative controls act to 

protect remaining required equipment 

(including inventory makeup sources) and to 

prevent removal of important equipment 

from service during higher risk plant 

configurations (such as reduced inventory 

conditions). 

In Mode 5 and 6, the idle cooling loop may 

only be made unavailable in support of 

surveillance testing and only if the remaining 

loop is operable and in operation. 

Additionally, the idle cooling loop can be 

made unavailable only if it can be recovered 

within the calculated time-to-boil for the 

most restrictive plant configuration that may 

exist during the test window. These 

restrictions, along with the information in the 

preceding paragraph, maintain a sufficient 

margin to safety to preclude a challenge to 

the integrity of the fuel clad. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

to 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: Joseph A. 

Aluise, Associate General Counsel— 

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station (LGS), 

Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: August 

31, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment involves 

administrative changes to the Technical 

Specifications (TSs). The proposed 

changes involve: (1) Making an editorial 

change to LGS Unit 1 TS Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.3.1, 

Action b; (2) making an editorial change 

to LGS Units 1 and 2 TS Table 3.3.1– 

1, Actions 2 and 9; (3) making the layout 

and format of LGS Unit 1 TS LCO 

3.6.5.3 Action requirements consistent 

with the LGS Unit 2 LCO Action 

requirements for the same TS; and 

(4) adding a reference to the minimum 

required number of operable main 

turbine bypass valves and the turbine 

bypass system response time to the core 

operating limits documented in the Core 

Operating Limits Report as specified in 

LGS, Units 1 and 2, TS 6.9.1.9. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee (Exelon) has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration, which is 

presented below: 

1. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. The proposed changes are 

administrative in nature and 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 proposed changes do not 

impact the initiators or assumptions of 

analyzed events, nor do they impact 

mitigation of accidents or transient events. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. The proposed changes are 

administrative in nature and do not alter 

plant configuration, require that new plant 

equipment be installed, alter assumptions 

made about accidents previously evaluated, 

or impact the function of plant SSCs or the 

manner in which SSCs are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. The proposed changes are 

administrative in nature and do not involve 

any physical changes to plant SSCs or the 

manner in which SSCs are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

change to any safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings, limiting conditions for 

operation, or design parameters for any SSC. 

The proposed changes do not impact any 

safety analysis assumptions and do not 

involve a change in initial conditions, system 

response times, or other parameters affecting 

an accident analysis. 

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: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Esquire, Associate General 

Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, 

LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, 

IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. 

Chernoff. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean 

County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: June 11, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

Technical Specifications (TSs), 

Appendix B. Specifically, the proposed 

amendment would change some 

wording to align with the Exelon 

Generation Company (EGC) 

terminology. Additionally, the proposed 

amendment would revise the 

description of the review and audit 

function to align with the EGC fleet 

model and relocate scope of the audit to 

the EGC fleet-wide Quality Assurance 

Topical Report. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. [The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated.] 

Response: No. 

The Environmental Technical 

Specifications (ETS) are concerned with 

monitoring the effect that plant operations 

have on the environment for the purpose of 

protecting the environment and have no 

[effect] on any accident postulated in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR). Accident probabilities or 

consequences are not affected in any way by 

the environmental monitoring and reporting 

required by the ETS. The revision of portions 

of Appendix B of the Renewed Facility 

Operating License (FOL) will not impact the 

design or operation of any plant system or 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 67403 

component. No environmental protection 

requirements established by other Federal, 

State, or local agencies are being reduced by 

this license amendment request. 

No physical changes to Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) will 

occur as a result of this proposed 

amendment. The proposed changes will not 

alter the physical design or operational 

procedures associated with any plant 

structure, system, or component. 

The proposed changes involve the 

revision/relocation of administrative 

requirements from the Environmental 

Technical Specifications (ETS) that are now 

controlled under the EGC Quality Assurance 

Topical Report (QATR). The Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements involve 

Organization and Audit and Review. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. [The proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated.] 

Response: No. 

Environmental monitoring and reporting 

have no effect on accident initiation. The 

revision of portions of Appendix B of the 

OCNGS TS[s] will not impact the design or 

operation of any plant system or component. 

There will be no effect on the types or 

amount of any effluents released from the 

plant. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

physical design, safety limits, or safety 

analysis assumptions associated with the 

operation of the plant. Accordingly, the 

changes do not introduce any new accident 

initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely 

[effect] the capabilities of any plant structure, 

system, or component to perform their safety 

function. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. [The proposed changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety.] 

Response: No. 

Revision of the ETS Organization and 

Audit and Review criteria in accordance with 

this submittal has no impact on margin of 

safety. Environmental evaluations will still 

be performed, when necessary, on changes to 

plant design or operations to assess the effect 

on environmental protection. Review, 

analysis and investigation of Unusual and 

Important Environmental Events will still be 

performed in accordance with the EGC 

Corrective Action Program. 

The proposed changes conform to NRC 

regulatory guidance regarding the content of 

plant [TSs]. The guidance is presented in 10 

CFR 50.36 and NUREG–1433. The revision of 

these administrative requirements will not 

reduce the quality assurance commitments as 

accepted by the NRC, nor reduce 

administrative controls essential to the safe 

operation of the plant. Future changes to 

these administrative requirements will be 

performed in accordance with NRC 

regulation 10 CFR 50.54(a), consistent with 

the guidance identified above. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, and with the changes noted 

above in square brackets, it appears that 

the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) 

are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. J. Bradley 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold Chernoff. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Docket 

No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 

1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: June 28, 

2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would delete the 

Seabrook Technical Specification 

3.8.4.2, ‘‘Containment Penetration 

Conductor Overcurrent Protective 

Devices and Protective Devices for Class 

1E Power Sources Connected to NonClass 1E Circuits.’’ The requirements 

would be relocated to a licenseecontrolled document, the Technical 

Requirements Manual (TRM). 

Basis for proposed NSHC 

determination: As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of NSHC, which is 

presented below: 

1. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not impact the 

physical function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs perform their design function. 

The proposed change neither adversely 

affects accident initiators or precursors, nor 

alters design assumptions. The proposed 

change does not alter or prevent the ability 

of operable SSCs to perform their intended 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

initiating event within assumed acceptance 

limits. 

This proposed change relocates the 

requirements for the containment penetration 

conductor overcurrent protective devices and 

the protective devices for Class 1E power 

sources connected to non-Class 1E circuits to 

the TRM. Relocating these requirements will 

have no adverse effect on plant operation, the 

availability or operation of any accident 

mitigation equipment, or plant response to a 

design basis accident. The electrical 

protective devices are not accident initiators. 

Whether the requirements for penetration 

protective devices for 1E power sources are 

contained in the TS or the TRM has no effect 

on the probability or consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. The proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change will not impact the 

accident analysis. The change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., 

no new or different type of equipment will 

be installed), a significant change in the 

method of plant operation, or new operator 

actions. The proposed change will not 

introduce failure modes that could result in 

a new accident. The change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

Margin of safety is associated with 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor 

coolant system pressure boundary, and 

containment structure) to limit the level of 

radiation dose to the public. The proposed 

change does not involve a significant change 

in the method of plant operation, and no 

accident analyses will be affected by the 

proposed changes. Additionally, the 

proposed changes will not relax any criteria 

used to establish safety limits and will not 

relax any safety system settings. The safety 

analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 

by this change. The proposed change will not 

result in plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. The proposed 

change does not adversely affect systems that 

respond to safely shutdown the plant and to 

maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 

condition. 

Therefore, these 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 50.92(c) are satisfied. 

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 

determine that the amendment request 

involves NSHC. 

Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, 

Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. 

Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. 

Chernoff. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: 

September 17, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The licensee proposed to amend the 

MNGP Technical Specifications, 

revising the values for the Minimum 

Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety 

limits of Reactor Core Safety Limit 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67404 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 

2.1.1.2. Currently this specification says 

‘‘MCPR shall be ≥1.10 for two 

recirculation loop operation or ≥1.12 for 

single recirculation loop operation.’’ The 

proposed amendment will change this 

specification to read ‘‘MCPR shall be 

≥1.15 for two recirculation loop 

operation or ≥1.15 for single 

recirculation loop operation.’’ The basis 

of the MCPR safety limit is to 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. The licensee’s 

proposed MCPR safety limit values, 

when approved by the NRC staff, will 

preserve the existing margin to 

transition boiling, thus ensuring that the 

probability of fuel damage will not be 

increased. 

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 (NSHC) analysis. The 

NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s NSHC 

analysis and has prepared its own as 

follows: 

(1) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The purpose of the MCPR safety limits is 

to ensure that at least 99.9 percent of all fuel 

rods in the core do not experience transition 

boiling if the limit is not violated. Of the 

postulated accidents and transients 

previously analyzed in the MNGP Updated 

Safety Analysis Report, none of them were 

postulated to be initiated by operation within 

the approved MCPR safety limits. 

Furthermore, the consequences of the 

analyzed accidents were not postulated to be 

exacerbated by operation within approved 

MCPR safety limits. Accordingly, the 

probability of occurrence and the 

consequences of the previously analyzed 

accidents would not be affected in any way 

by the proposed amendment to the TS. 

(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 involve 

any physical alteration of the plant (no new 

or different type of equipment will be 

installed) nor does it change methods and 

procedures governing plant operation. The 

proposed amendment will not impose any 

new or eliminate any old requirements. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment will not have 

any effect on previously used safety analysis 

methods, scenarios, acceptance criteria, or 

assumptions. Therefore, the proposed 

amendment does not involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the proposed 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for the licensee: Peter M. 

Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel 

Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

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. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: 

December 3, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request revises 

Technical Specifications to incorporate 

Standard Technical Specification 3.1.8 

‘‘Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) Vent 

and Drain Valves’’ and associated Bases 

of NUREG–1433, Revision 3, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specifications General 

Electric Plants, BWR/4,’’ modified to 

account for plant specific design details. 

Date of Issuance: October 6, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 244. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: Amendment revised the License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17444). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: February 

24, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment deleted Operating License 

Condition 2.C.14, Fuel Movement in the 

Fuel Handling Building, due to the 

licensee’s election to comply with 10 

CFR 50.68, ‘‘Criticality accident 

requirements,’’ of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR). License 

Condition 2.C.14, which essentially 

requires that no more than one fuel 

assembly shall be out of its shipping 

container or storage location at a given 

time, was one basis for the licensee’s 

previous exemption from the criticality 

alarm system requirements of 10 CFR 

70.24. The criticality accident 

requirements can be met either by 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 67405 

complying with 10 CFR 70.24 or 10 CFR 

50.68 requirements. The 10 CFR 50.68 

criteria are now being used; therefore, 

License Condition 2.C.14 is no longer 

required. 

Date of issuance: October 14, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 60 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 229. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

38: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23813). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 14, 

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: 

February 25, 2010, as supplemented by 

letters dated July 9, October 14, and 

October 15, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications to allow temporary 

changes to the Secondary Containment 

boundary during shutdown conditions. 

Specifically, the change allows the 

Reactor Building Secondary 

Containment boundary associated with 

the Trunnion Room to be relocated from 

the Trunnion Room outer wall and door 

to the Reactor Building inner walls and 

penetrations located inside the 

Trunnion Room. 

Date of issuance: October 18, 2010. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 277. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–16: The amendment revised 

the License and Technical 

Specifications 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32513). 

The supplements dated July 9, October 

14, and October 15, 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 October 18, 

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 21, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated May 11, June 10, June 24, 

June 29, July 28, August 3, August 12, 

September 10, and September 17, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment allows the production of 

Cobalt-60 by irradiating Cobalt-59 

targets located in modified fuel 

assemblies called Isotope Test 

Assemblies (ITAs). The amendment 

allows up to 12 ITAs to be loaded into 

the reactor core beginning with the fall 

2010 refueling outage. The modified 

fuel assemblies are planned to be in 

operation as part of a pilot program. The 

purpose of the pilot program is to obtain 

data to verify that the modified fuel 

assemblies perform satisfactorily in 

service prior to use on a production 

basis. The Cobalt-60 is ultimately 

intended for use in the medical industry 

for use in cancer treatments, and blood 

and instrument sterilization; in the 

radiography and security industries for 

imaging; and in the food industry for 

cold pasteurization and irradiation 

sterilization. 

Date of issuance: October 7, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 45 

days. 

Amendment No.: 184. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

57: The amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications and the 

License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9445). 

The letters dated May 11, June 10, June 

24, June 29, July 28, August 3, August 

12, September 10, and September 17, 

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 October 7, 2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: Yes. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

November 4, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises 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; (3) change TSs that currently 

reference TS 4.0.5 to reference the IST 

Program or ISI Program, as applicable; 

and (4) revise TS 6.10.3.h to reflect the 

deletion of the ISI Program from the 

TSs. 

Date of issuance: October 19, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No.: 185. 

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 

4118). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 19, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

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 application for amendment: 

August 16, 2010. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification 3.8.1, ‘‘AC [Alternating 

Current] Sources—Operating,’’ 

Condition A, to allow a one-time 

extension of the Completion Time (per 

train) to 10 days to restore an inoperable 

required offsite circuit. 

Date of issuance: October 15, 2010. 

Effective date: Upon issuance; to be 

implemented within 60 days of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: Unit 2–224; Unit 3– 

217. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

10 and NPF–15: The amendment 

revised the Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 7, 2010 (75 FR 

54395). 

No significant hazards consideration 

(NSHC) comments received: No. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments, state consultation, 

and final NSHC determination is 

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 

October 15, 2010. 

Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. 

Porter, Esquire, Southern California 

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67406 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Notices 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, 

Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Surry County, Virginia 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 16, 2009, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 7, 2010. 

Brief Description of amendments: 

These amendments revised the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to: 

(1) Implementation of WCAP–8745– 

P–A, ‘‘Design Bases for Thermal 

Overpower Delta-T and Thermal 

Overtemperature Delta-T Trip 

Function,’’ 

(2) Implementation of NRC-approved 

Dominion Fleet Report DOM–NAF–2–A, 

‘‘Reactor Core Thermal-Hydraulics 

Using the VIPRE–D Computer Code,’’ 

(3) Implementation of a Statistical 

Design Limit for the analytic code and 

critical heat flux correlations that are 

being used in DOM–NAF–2–A, and 

(4) Implementation of Dominion TR 

VEP–NE–2–A, ‘‘Statistical DNBR 

Evaluation Methodology.’’ 

The requested change also affects the 

facility TSs. Items 1 and 2 in the above 

list are methodologies that are used in 

the determination of core operating 

limits; hence, items were put into the 

reference list contained in TS 6.2.C, 

‘‘CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT.’’ 

Additional TS changes are being 

implemented to provide consistency 

with the Improved TS format in NURG– 

1431, Revision 3, ‘‘Standard Technical 

Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,’’ 

where practical, and to delete obsolete 

TS requirements. 

Date of issuance: October 19, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 270 and 269. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments 

changed the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR 

62838). The supplement provided 

clarifying information that did not 

change the scope of the original 

application and the initial proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated October 19, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of October 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27416 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 52–042; NRC–2010–0165] 

Exelon Nuclear Texas Holdings, LLC; 

Victoria County Station Early Site 

Permit Application; Notice of Intent To 

Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement and Conduct Scoping 

Process 

Exelon Nuclear Texas Holdings, LLC 

(Exelon) has submitted an application 

for an early site permit (ESP) for 

Victoria County Station (VCS) site, 

located approximately 13.3 miles south 

of the city of Victoria, Texas. The 

application for the ESP was submitted 

by Exelon by letter dated March 25, 

2010, pursuant to title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), parts 51 

and 52. 

A notice of receipt and availability of 

the application, including the 

environmental report (ER), was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 (75 FR 

22434). A notice of acceptance for 

docketing of the application for the ESP 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 14, 2010 (75 FR 33653). A 

notice of hearing and opportunity to 

petition for leave to intervene in the 

proceeding of the application will be 

published at a later date. 

The purposes of this notice are: (1) To 

inform the public that the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

be preparing an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) as part of the review of 

the application for the ESP and (2) to 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to participate in the environmental 

scoping process as defined in 10 CFR 

51.29. The NRC has invited the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston 

District, to participate in the preparation 

of the EIS as a cooperating agency. 

In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 

800.8(c), ‘‘Coordination with the 

National Environmental Policy Act,’’ the 

NRC staff plans to coordinate 

compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) with steps taken to meet the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA). Pursuant to 36 CFR 

800.8(c), the NRC staff intends to use 

the process and documentation for the 

preparation of the EIS on the proposed 

action to comply with Section 106 of the 

NHPA in lieu of the procedures set forth 

in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.45 and 

51.50, Exelon submitted the ER as part 

of the ESP application. The ER was 

prepared pursuant to 10 CFR parts 51 

and 52 and is available for public 

inspection at the NRC Public Document 

Room (PDR) located at One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 or from the 

Publicly Available Records (PAR) 

component of NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible 

at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html, which provides access 

through the NRC’s Electronic Reading 

Room (ERR) link. The accession number 

in ADAMS for the environmental report 

is ML101120186. Persons who do not 

have access to ADAMS or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS should 

contact the NRC’s PDR Reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209/301–415–4737 or via 

e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

application may also be viewed on the 

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/ 

new-reactors/esp/victoria.html. In 

addition, the Victoria Public Library 

located at 302 North Main Street in 

Victoria, Texas, has agreed to maintain 

a copy of the ER and make it available 

for public inspection. 

The following key reference 

documents related to the application 

and the NRC staff’s review processes are 

available through the NRC’s Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov: 

a. 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic 

Licensing and Related Regulatory 

Function; 

b. 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for 

Nuclear Power Plants; 

c. 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site 

Criteria; 

d. NUREG–1555, Standard Review 

Plans for Environmental Reviews for 

Nuclear Power Plants; 

e. NUREG/BR–0298, Brochure on 

Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process; 

f. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of 

Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Stations; 

g. Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site 

Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Stations; 

h. Fact Sheet on Nuclear Power Plant 

Licensing Process; 

i. Regulatory Guide 1.206, Combined 

License Applications for Nuclear Power 

Plants; and 

j. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Policy Statement on the Treatment of 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES