ML11196A022

July 26, 2011 Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

ML11196A022
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde, Point Beach, Byron, Braidwood, North Anna, River Bend
Issue date:	07/15/2011
From:	Giitter J G Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
To:
Clayton B A
References
76FR44614, NRC20110167
Download: ML11196A022 (21)

Text

44614 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices fixtures, and electronic equipment. For many of these incidental items, U.S.

manufactured alternatives are not

always readily or reasonably available.

The miscellaneous character of these

manufactured goods, together with their

low individual cost, characterize them

as items incidental to the project.

Requiring individual exemptions for

low cost, incidental items would be

time prohibitive and overly burdensome

for the awardee (University of Alaska, Fairbanks), subcontractor (shipyard) and

for NSF. Such a de minimis exemption

allows the award recipients to focus

their efforts on the major manufactured

goods within the ARRV project. The

terms and conditions of the award still

require UAF to Buy American to the

extent practicable for items less than

$10,000. Therefore, a limited project-

specific de minimis exemption for any

such incidental item costing $10,000 or

less used in and incorporated into the

ARRV project is justified in the public

interest. The Department of Energy has

issued a similar type of de minimis

exemption, relating to its Office of

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy [75 FR 35447 (June 22, 2010)].

At this phase in the ARRV project, it is estimated that only $750,000 of

incidental items will require use of the

de minimis exemption. To ensure

proper oversight with regard to use of

this exemption within the project, the

agency hereby establishes an allowable

ceiling of $1.5M for the application of

this de minimis exemption; this

represents approximately 2.5% of the

total value of materials used in the

vessel. (Since the previously-granted

exemptions for the purchase of ARRV

equipment were not granted on this de

minimis basis, but instead because there

was not a domestic manufacturer of the qualifying equipment, those purchases

do not fall within the $1.5M ceiling for

the use of this de minimis exemption.)

Issuance of this limited project-specific exemption recognizes NSF's

commitment to expeditious spending of

Recovery Act dollars balanced against

the need for efficient implementation of

the Recovery Act provision while still

maintaining the Buy American

requirements for manufactured goods

that are greater than the de minimis

amount of $10,000.

III. Exemption On July 6, 2011, and under the authority of section 1605(b)(1) of the Public Law 111-5 and delegation order

dated 27 May 2010, with respect to the

Alaska Region Research Vessel Project

funded by NSF, the NSF Chief Financial

Officer granted a limited project

exemption for any incidental item costing $10,000 or less used in and

incorporated into the project. With this

exemption, the agency hereby

establishes a $1.5M ceiling for the total

allowable value of de minimis

exemptions used on this project.

Dated: July 7, 2011.

Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2011-18643 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0167]

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses Involving No Significant

Hazards Considerations 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 June 30, 2011 to July 13, 2011. The last biweekly

notice was published on July 12, 2011

(76 FR 40937).

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0167 in the subject line of

your comments. Comments submitted in

writing or in electronic form will be

posted on the NRC Web site and on the

Federal rulemaking Web site http://

www.regulations.gov.

Because your comments will not be edited to remove

any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including

any information in your submission that

you do not want to be publicly

disclosed.

The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments

received from other persons for

submission to the NRC inform those

persons that the NRC will not edit their

comments to remove any identifying or

contact information, and therefore, they

should not include any information in their comments that they do not want

publicly disclosed.

You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.

• Federal Rulemaking Web site:

Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID

NRC-NRC-2011-0167. Address

questions about NRC dockets to Carol

Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

• Mail comments to:

Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail

Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

• Fax comments to:

RADB at 301-492-3446.

You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using

the following methods:

• NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied, for a fee, publicly available

documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-

F21, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

20852. *NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are

accessible electronically through

ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

From this page, the public can gain

entry into ADAMS, which provides text

and image files of the NRC's public

documents. If you do not have access to

ADAMS or if there are problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR

reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-

415-4737, or by e-mail to

pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

• Federal Rulemaking Web site:

Public comments and supporting

materials related to this notice can be

found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2011-

0167. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00045Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44615 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices 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.

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 NRC's PDR, located at

One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC

regulations are accessible electronically

from the NRC Library on the NRC Web

site at 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, then any hearing held

would take place before the issuance of

any amendment.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a

request for hearing, a petition for leave

to intervene, any motion or other

document filed in the proceeding prior

to the submission of a request for

hearing or petition to intervene, and

documents filed by interested

governmental entities participating

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

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule

(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E-

Filing process requires participants to

submit and serve all adjudicatory

documents over the internet, or in some

cases to mail copies on electronic

storage media. Participants may not

submit paper copies of their filings

unless they seek an exemption in

accordance with the procedures

described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 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

identification (ID) certificate, which

allows the participant (or its counsel or

representative) to digitally sign

documents and access the E-Submittal

server for any proceeding in which it is

participating; and (2) advise the

Secretary that the participant will be

submitting a request or petition for

hearing (even in instances in which the

participant, or its counsel or

representative, already holds an NRC-

issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will

establish an electronic docket for the

hearing in this proceeding if the

Secretary has not already established an

electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on

NRC's public Web site at http://

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

apply-certificates.html.

System VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00046Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44616 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices 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 the Electronic

Information Exchange System, users

will be required to install a Web

browser plug-in from the NRC Web site.

Further information on the Web-based

submission form, including the

installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web

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

submittals.html.

Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has

been created, the participant can then

submit a request for hearing or petition

for leave to intervene. Submissions

should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance

available on the NRC public Web site at

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

submittals.html.

A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are

submitted through the NRC's E-Filing

system. To be timely, an electronic

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing

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

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of

a transmission, the E-Filing system

time-stamps the document and sends

the submitter an e-mail notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

E-Filing system also distributes an e-

mail notice that provides access to the

document to the NRC Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they

can obtain access to the document via

the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing

system may seek assistance by

contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the Contact Us link located on the NRC Web site at http://

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

submittals.html, by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. 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://

ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are

requested not to include personal

privacy information, such as social

security numbers, home addresses, or

home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law

requires submission of such

information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited

excerpts that serve the purpose of the

adjudicatory filings and would

constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include

copyrighted materials in their

submission.

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the

date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings will not be entertained

absent a determination by the presiding

officer that the petition or request

should be granted or the contentions

should be admitted, based on a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).

For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the

application for amendment which is

available for public inspection at the

NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint

North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland

20852. Publicly available documents

created or received at the NRC are

accessible electronically through

ADAMS in the NRC Library at 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 Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No.

50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request:

June 10, 2011. Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise

the Technical Specifications (TSs) to

add a new limiting condition for

operation (LCO) Applicability

requirement, LCO 3.0.9, and its

associated Bases, relating to the

modification of requirements regarding

the impact of unavailable barriers, not

explicitly addressed in TSs, but

required for operability of supported

systems in TSs. This change is

consistent with NRC-approved

Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-

427, Revision 2, Allowance for Non

Technical Specification Barrier

Degradation on Supported System

OPERABILITY.

The NRC staff issued a Notice of Opportunity to Comment in the Federal Register on June 2, 2006 (71 FR 32145), on possible amendments to revise the

plant-specific TSs, including a model

safety evaluation and model no

significant hazards consideration

determination using the consolidated

line item improvement process. The

NRC staff subsequently issued a Notice

of Availability of this TS improvement

in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444). The licensee

affirmed the applicability of the model

no significant hazards consideration VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00047Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44617 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices determination in its application dated June 10, 2011.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration is presented

below: Criterion 1-The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the

Probability or Consequences of an

Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system

technical specification (TS) when the

inoperability is due solely to an

unavailable barrier if risk is assessed

and managed. The postulated initiating

events which may require a functional

barrier are limited to those with low

frequencies of occurrence, and the

overall TS system safety function would

still be available for the majority of

anticipated challenges. Therefore, the

probability of an accident previously

evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an

accident while relying on the allowance

provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no

different than the consequences of an

accident while relying on the TS

required actions in effect without the

allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. Therefore, the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated are not

significantly affected by this change.

The addition of a requirement to assess

and manage the risk introduced by this

change will further minimize possible

concerns. Therefore, this change does

not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2-The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or

Different Kind of Accident From any

Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment

will be installed). Allowing delay times

for entering supported system TS when

inoperability is due solely to an

unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed

and managed, will not introduce new

failure modes or effects and will not, in

the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences

exceed the consequences of accidents

previously evaluated. The addition of a

requirement to assess and manage the

risk introduced by this change will

further minimize possible concerns.

Thus, this change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from an accident previously

evaluated.

Criterion 3-The Proposed Change Does

Not Involve a Significant Reduction in

the Margin of Safety The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS

when the inoperability is due solely to

an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed

and managed. The postulated initiating

events which may require a functional

barrier are limited to those with low

frequencies of occurrence, and the

overall TS system safety function would

still be available for the majority of

anticipated challenges. The risk impact

of the proposed TS changes was

assessed following the three-tiered

approach recommended in [NRC

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177, An

Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-

Informed Decisionmaking: Technical

Specifications]. A bounding risk

assessment was performed to justify the

proposed TS changes. This application

of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the

licensee's performance of a risk

assessment and the management of

plant risk. The net change to the margin

of safety is insignificant as indicated by

the anticipated low levels of associated

risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional

core damage probability] and ICLERP

[incremental conditional large early

release probability]) as shown in Table

1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety

Evaluation. Therefore, this change does

not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the 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 Council-

Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana

70113. NRC Branch Chief:

Michael T.

Markley. NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (NextEra, the Licensee), Docket Nos.

50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of

Two Creeks, Manitowac County, Wisconsin Date of amendment request:

June 23, 2011. Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment will remove

the Table of Contents from the

Technical Specifications and place it

under licensee control. The Table of

Contents (TOCs) for the Technical

Specifications (TSs) is not being

eliminated. The responsibility for maintenance and issuance of updates to

the TOCs will transfer from the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

to the licensee. The TOCs will no longer

be included in the TSs and, as such, will no longer be part of Appendix A to

the Operating License.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed amendment is administrative and affects control of a

document, the TOCs, listing the

specifications in the plant TSs. Transferring

control from the NRC to NextEra does not

affect the operation, physical configuration, or function of plant equipment or systems.

The proposed amendment does not impact

the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events, nor does it impact the mitigation of

accidents or transient events.

Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 amendment is administrative and does not alter plant

configuration, require installation of new

equipment, alter assumptions about

previously analyzed accidents, or impact

operation or function of plant equipment or

systems. Therefore, this proposed amendment 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 amendment is administrative. The TOCs is not required by

regulation to be in the TSs. Removal does not

impact any safety assumptions or have the

potential to reduce a margin of safety. The

proposed amendment involves a transfer of

control of the TOCs from the NRC to NextEra.

No change in the technical content of the TSs

is involved. Consequently, transfer from the

NRC to NextEra has no impact on the margin

of safety.

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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00048Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44618 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra Energy Point

Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno

Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Branch Chief:

Robert J.

Pascarelli.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North

Anna Power Station, Unit 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia Date of amendment request:

July 19, 2010, as supplemented September 9, 2010, January 26, May 16, and June 23, 2011. Description of amendment request:

Changes are proposed to the Technical

Specifications to include an analytical

methodology for the critical heat flux

correlation.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

Approval of the proposed changes will allow Dominion to use the VIPRE [Versatile

Internals and Components Program for

Reactors-EPRI]-DIWRB-2M and VIPRE-

DIW-3 code/correlation pairs to perform

licensing calculations of Westinghouse RFA-

2 fuel in North Anna Cores, using the DDLs

[deterministic design limits] documented in

Appendix C of the DOM-NAF-2-A Fleet

Report and the SDL [statistical design limit]

documented herein. Neither the code/

correlation pair nor the Statistical Departure

from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR)

Evaluation Methodology affect accident

initiators and thus cannot increase the

probability of any accident. Further, since

both the deterministic and statistical DNBR

limits meet the required design basis of

avoiding Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) with 95% probability at a 95%

confidence level, the use of the new code/

correlation and Statistical DNBR Evaluation

Methodology do not increase the potential

consequences of any accident. Finally, the

full core DNB design limit provides increased assurance that the consequences of a

postulated accident which includes

radioactive release would be minimized

because the overall number of rods in DNB

would not exceed the 0.1% level. The

pertinent evaluations to be performed as part

of the cycle specific reload safety analysis to

confirm that the existing safety analyses

remain applicable have been performed and

determined to be acceptable. The use of a

different code/correlation pair will not

increase the probability of an accident

because plant systems will not be operated in

a different manner, and system interfaces

will not change. The use of the VIPRE-DIWRB-2M and VIPRE-DIW-3 code/

correlation pairs to perform licensing

calculations of Westinghouse RFA-2 fuel in

North Anna cores will not result in a

measurable impact on normal operating plant

releases and will not increase the predicted

radiological consequences of accidents

postulated in the UFSAR [Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report].

Therefore, neither the probability of occurrence nor the consequences of any accident previously evaluated is significantly

increased.

2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or

different type of equipment will be installed).

The use of VIPRE-D/WRB-2M and the

VIPRE-D/W-3 code/correlation pairs and the

applicable fuel design limits for DNBR does

not impact any of the applicable design

criteria and the licensing basis criteria will

continue to be met. Demonstrated adherence

to these standards and criteria precludes new

challenges to components and systems that

could introduce a new type of accident.

Setpoint safety analysis evaluations have

demonstrated that the use of VIPRE-D/WRB-

2M and VIPRE-D/W3 is acceptable. Design

and performance criteria will continue to be

met and no new single failure mechanisms

will be created. The use of the VIPRE-D/

WRB-2M and VIPRE-D/W-3 code/

correlation pairs and the Statistical DNBR

Evaluation Methodology does not involve

any alteration to plant equipment or

procedures that would introduce any new or

unique operational modes or accident

precursors. Thus, this change does not create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

Approval of the proposed changes will allow Dominion to use the VIPRE-D/WRB-

2M and VIPRE-D/W-3 code/correlation pairs

to perform licensing calculations of

Westinghouse RFA-2 fuel in North Anna

cores, using the DDLs documented in

Appendix C of the DOM-NAF-2-A Fleet

Report and the SDL documented herein. The

SDL has been developed in accordance with

the Statistical DNBR Evaluation

Methodology. North Anna TS 2.1, Safety

Limits, specifies that any DNBR limit

established by any code/correlation must

provide at least 95% non-DNB probability at

a 95% confidence level. The DNBR limits

meet the design basis of avoiding DNB with

95% probability at a 95% confidence level.

The required DNBR margin of safety for

North Anna Power Station, which in this

case is the margin between the 95/95 DNBR

limit and clad failure, is therefore not

reduced. Therefore, the proposed TS change 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 50.92(c) are satisfied.

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to

determine that the amendment request

involves no significant hazards

consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Lillian M.

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar

Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.

NRC Branch Chief:

Gloria Kulesa.

Previously Published Notices of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual

notices. The notice content was the

same as above. They were published as

individual notices either because time

did not allow the Commission to wait

for this biweekly notice or because the

action involved exigent circumstances.

They are repeated here because the

biweekly notice lists all amendments

issued or proposed to be issued

involving no significant hazards

consideration.

For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and

page cited. This notice does not extend

the notice period of the original notice.

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, as supplemented by letters

dated February 11 and May 25, 2011.

Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the feedwater line break

with loss of offsite power and single

failure (FWLB/LOP/SF) analysis

summarized in the Palo Verde Nuclear

Generating Station Updated Safety

Analysis Report. The revision would

change the credited operator action to

20 minutes from 30 minutes to control

the pressurizer level. The revision

would also revise the rate of reactor

coolant pump (RCP) bleed-off to the

reactor drain tank from three gallons per

minute to zero.

Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:

June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37853).

Expiration date of individual notice:

July 28, 2011, for comments and August

29, 2011, for hearings.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00049Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44619 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices 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 NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Publicly available documents created or

received at the NRC are accessible

electronically through the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at

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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN

50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois Date of application for amendment:

June 29, 2010, as supplemented on

August 24, 2010, and January 13, 2011.

Brief description of amendment:

The license amendments revise Technical

Specifications (TS) Section 3.4.12, Low

Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System, to correct an

inconsistency between the TS, and

implementation of procedures and

administrative controls for Safety

Injection pumps required to mitigate a

postulated loss of decay heat removal

during mid-loop operation as discussed

in NRC Generic Letter 88-17, Loss of

Decay Heat Removal.

Date of issuance:

June 29, 2011.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.

Amendment Nos.:

167, 167, 174, 174.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66:

The amendments revise the TSs and license.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

October 5, 2010 (75 FR 61526).

The August 24, 2010, and January 13, 2011, supplements contained clarifying

information and did not change the NRC

staff's initial proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

safety evaluation dated June 29, 2011.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July 2011.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph G. Giitter, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2011-18525 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ Docket No. 030-33305; License No. 25-10994-04; EA-10-258; NRC-2011-0163]

In the Matter of Bozeman Deaconess Foundation, dba Bozeman Deaconess

Hospital, Bozeman, MT; Confirmatory

Order Modifying License; (Effective

Immediately)

I Bozeman Deaconess Hospital (Licensee) is the holder of Materials License No. 25-10994-04 issued by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

or the Commission) pursuant to Title 10

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10

CFR) parts 30 and 35. The license

authorizes the operation of the

Licensee's facility in accordance with

the conditions specified therein, at 915

Highland Boulevard, Bozeman, Montana. This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

mediation session conducted on May

25, 2011, at the NRC Region IV offices

in Arlington, Texas.

II On January 27, 2010, the NRC conducted a routine unannounced inspection of the Bozeman Deaconess

Hospital facility to evaluate radiation

safety and security, as well as

compliance with Commission rules and

regulations and the conditions of the

license. During the inspection, it was

determined that an employee of

Bozeman Deaconess Hospital failed to

secure radioactive materials from

unauthorized access or removal from

the facility's nuclear medicine

laboratory (hot lab). On March 8, 2010, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI),

Region IV, began an investigation (OI

Case No. 4-2010-033) to determine

whether employees from Bozeman

Deaconess Hospital willfully failed to

secure radioactive material during

periods when authorized personnel

were absent from the hot lab. Based on

the results of the inspection and the

evidence developed during the

investigation, the NRC identified two

apparent violations. The first apparent

violation involved a willful failure to

secure licensed materials from

unauthorized removal or access as

required by 10 CFR 20.1801. The second

violation involved a failure to control

and maintain constant surveillance of

licensed material as required by 10 CFR

20.1802. By letter dated April 12, 2011, the NRC transmitted the results of the

inspection and a factual summary of

OI's Investigation Report 4-2010-033 to

Bozeman Deaconess Hospital. In the

April 12 letter, the NRC informed the

Licensee that the NRC was considering escalated enforcement action for the

apparent violations. The NRC offered

the Licensee the opportunity to request

a predecisional enforcement conference

or request ADR with the NRC in an

attempt to resolve issues associated with

this matter. In response, on April 21, 2011, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital

requested ADR to resolve this matter

with the NRC.

On May 25, 2011, the NRC and Licensee representatives met in an ADR

session with a professional mediator, arranged through the Cornell University

Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is

a process in which a neutral mediator

with no decision-making authority

assists the parties in reaching an

agreement on resolving any differences

regarding the dispute. This VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00050Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES