Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 10823 

items are expected to involve the 

consideration of classified information 

and the meeting will be closed to the 

public. 

Dated: March 5, 2010. 

Henry C. Pitney, 

Acting Vice President and General Counsel, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5170 Filed 3–5–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

National Endowment for the Arts 

National Council on the Arts 169th 

Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 

L. 92–463), as amended, notice is hereby 

given that a meeting of the National 

Council on the Arts will be held on 

March 25–26, 2010 in Rooms 716 and 

M–09 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20506. 

This meeting, from 5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

on Thursday, March 25th in Room 716 

and from 9 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. on Friday, 

March 26th in Room M–09 (ending time 

is approximate), will be open to the 

public on a space available basis. The 

Thursday agenda will include review 

and voting on applications and 

guidelines. On Friday, the meeting will 

begin with opening remarks by the 

Chairman, including a tribute to former 

NEA Folk Arts Director Bess Lomax 

Hawes, swearing-in of new Council 

member Irvin Mayfield, and 

Congressional/White House/Budget 

updates. This will be followed by a 

presentation on Survey of Public 

Participation in the Arts by Sunil 

Iyengar. The meeting will adjourn 

following concluding remarks. 

If, in the course of the open session 

discussion, it becomes necessary for the 

Council to discuss non-public 

commercial or financial information of 

intrinsic value, the Council will go into 

closed session pursuant to subsection 

(c)(4) of the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and in 

accordance with the determination of 

the Chairman of November 10, 2009. 

Additionally, discussion concerning 

purely personal information about 

individuals, submitted with grant 

applications, such as personal 

biographical and salary data or medical 

information, may be conducted by the 

Council in closed session in accordance 

with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

Any interested persons may attend, as 

observers, Council discussions and 

reviews that are open to the public. If 

you need special accommodations due 

to a disability, please contact the Office 

of AccessAbility, National Endowment 

for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682– 

5532, TTY–TDD 202/682–5429, at least 

seven (7) days prior to the meeting. 

Further information with reference to 

this meeting can be obtained from the 

Office of Communications, National 

Endowment for the Arts, Washington, 

DC 20506, at 202/682–5570. 

Dated: March 4, 2010. 

Kathy Plowitz-Worden, 

Panel Coordinator, Office of Guidelines and 

Panel Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4917 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7537–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0081] 

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 February 11, 

2010, to February 24, 2010. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

February 23, 2010 (75 FR 8139). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, 

this means that operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch (RDB), 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 RDB 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
10824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 10825 

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. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: May 28, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC 

Sources-Operating,’’ to restrict voltage 

limits for the applicable TS 3.8.1 

surveillances governing the Emergency 

Diesel Generators (EDGs). 

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? 

No. The increase in the minimum EDG 

output voltage acceptance value in TS 3.8.1 

Surveillance Requirements does not 

adversely affect any of the parameters in the 

accident analyses. The proposed change 

increases the minimum allowed EDG output 

voltage to ensure that sufficient voltage is 

available to operate the required Emergency 

Safety Feature (ESF) equipment under 

accident conditions. Additionally the 

increase in minimum voltage output voltage 

allowed ensures that adequate voltage is 

available to support the assumptions made in 

the Design Bases Accident (DBA) analyses. 

This conservative change of the EDG voltage 

output acceptance criteria does not affect the 

probability of evaluated accidents, but rather 

provides increased assurance that the EDGs 

will provide a sufficient voltage. Therefore, 

the proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

No. The increase in the minimum EDG 

output voltage acceptance criterion supports 

the assumptions in the accident analyses that 

sufficient voltage will be available to operate 

ESF equipment on the Class 1E buses when 

these buses are powered from the Emergency 

Diesel Generators. The maximum EDG output 

voltage of 4580 volts is not affected by this 

change. The change in minimum output 

voltage from 3740 to 3950 volts ensures the 

reliability of the onsite emergency power 

source. Therefore, the proposed change will 

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 margin of safety? 

This proposed license amendment is 

limited to increasing the minimum EDG 

output voltage acceptance criterion in TS 

3.8.1 Surveillance Requirements. No other 

surveillance criterion is affected. The 

surveillance frequencies and test requirement 

are unchanged. This amendment provides 

increased assurance that the EDG will 

provide sufficient voltage to its respective 

components to ensure design requirements 

are satisfied. Therefore, the proposed change 

will 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: Ms. Lisa F. 

Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and 

Managing Attorney, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church 

Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
10826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: July 1, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise TS 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip System 

(RTS) Instrumentation’’ and TS 1.1, 

‘‘Definitions.’’ The proposed 

amendments support plant 

modifications which would replace the 

existing Source Range (SR) and 

Intermediate Range (IR) excore detector 

systems with equivalent neutron 

monitoring systems. The new 

instrumentation will perform both the 

SR and the IR monitoring functions. 

Implementation of the above changes 

will entail plant modifications and will 

impact the Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Reports (UFSAR). The 

necessary UFSAR revisions will be 

submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 

50.71(e). 

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 Technical Specification 

changes are in support of a plant 

modification involving the replacement and 

upgrade of the Nuclear Instrumentation 

System (NIS) Source Range and Intermediate 

Range instrumentation. The specific 

Technical Specification changes are 

associated with 1) the methods of calibrating 

NIS channels; 2) the definition of Nominal 

Trip Setpoint; 3) the specific Nominal Trip 

Setpoint and Allowable Values for various 

NIS channels, including the Intermediate 

Range, Source Range and Intermediate Range 

Permissive ‘‘P–6’’ instrumentation; 4) the 

addition of specific requirements to be taken 

if an as-found Intermediate Range or Source 

Range channel setpoint is outside its 

predefined as-found tolerance; and 5) the 

addition of specific requirements regarding 

resetting of an Intermediate Range or Source 

Range channel setpoint within an as-left 

tolerance. 

The NIS is accident mitigation equipment 

and does not affect the probability of any 

accident being initiated. In addition, none of 

the above-mentioned proposed Technical 

Specification changes affect the probability of 

any accident being initiated. 

The performance of the replacement SR 

and IR detectors and associated equipment 

will equal or exceed that of the existing 

instrumentation. The proposed changes to 

Nominal Trip Setpoints and Allowable 

Values are based on accepted industry 

standards and will preserve assumptions in 

the applicable accident analyses. None of the 

proposed changes alter any assumption 

previously made in the radiological 

consequences evaluations, nor do they affect 

mitigation of the radiological consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

In summary, the proposed changes will 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 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or single failures are introduced 

as a result of any of the proposed changes. 

The NIS is not capable by itself of initiating 

any accident. Other than the replacement of 

the detectors themselves and the associated 

hardware, no physical changes to the overall 

plant are being proposed. No changes to the 

overall manner in which the plant is 

operated are being proposed. Therefore, none 

of the proposed changes will 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 

Margin of safety is related to the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to perform their intended 

functions. These barriers include the fuel 

cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure 

boundary, and the containment barriers. The 

modification to replace the SR and IR 

detectors and associated equipment will not 

have any impact on these barriers. In 

addition, the proposed Technical 

Specification changes will not have any 

impact on these barriers. No accident 

mitigating equipment will be adversely 

impacted as a result of the modification. The 

proposed changes do not affect any safety 

analysis conclusions because the SR and IR 

neutron flux trips are not explicitly credited 

in any accident analysis. The replacement 

instrumentation will have overall 

performance capabilities equal to or greater 

than those for the existing instrumentation. 

Therefore, existing safety margins will be 

preserved. None of the proposed changes will 

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: Ms. Lisa F. 

Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and 

Managing Attorney, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church 

Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: July 1, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise TS 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip System 

(RTS) Instrumentation.’’ The proposed 

amendments support plant 

modifications which would replace the 

existing Source Range (SR) and 

Intermediate Range (IR) excore detector 

systems with equivalent neutron 

monitoring systems. The new 

instrumentation will perform both the 

SR and the IR monitoring functions. 

Implementation of the above changes 

will entail plant modifications and will 

impact the Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Reports (UFSAR). The 

necessary UFSAR revisions will be 

submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 

50.71(e). 

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 Technical Specification 

changes are in support of a plant 

modification involving the replacement and 

upgrade of the Nuclear Instrumentation 

System (NIS) Source Range and Intermediate 

Range instrumentation. The specific 

Technical Specification changes are 

associated with (1) the methods of calibrating 

NIS channels; (2) the definition of Nominal 

Trip Setpoint; (3) the specific Nominal Trip 

Setpoint and Allowable Values for various 

NIS channels, including the Intermediate 

Range, Source Range and Intermediate Range 

Permissive ‘‘P–6’’ instrumentation; (4) the 

addition of specific requirements to be taken 

if an as-found Intermediate Range or Source 

Range channel setpoint is outside its 

predefined as-found tolerance; and (5) the 

addition of specific requirements regarding 

resetting of an Intermediate Range or Source 

Range channel setpoint within an as-left 

tolerance. 

The NIS is accident mitigation equipment 

and does not affect the probability of any 

accident being initiated. In addition, none of 

the above-mentioned proposed Technical 

Specification changes affect the probability of 

any accident being initiated. 

The performance of the replacement SR 

and IR detectors and associated equipment 

will equal or exceed that of the existing 

instrumentation. The proposed changes to 

Nominal Trip Setpoints and Allowable 

Values are based on accepted industry 

standards and will preserve assumptions in 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 10827 

the applicable accident analyses. None of the 

proposed changes alter any assumption 

previously made in the radiological 

consequences evaluations, nor do they affect 

mitigation of the radiological consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

In summary, the proposed changes will 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 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or single failures are introduced 

as a result of any of the proposed changes. 

The NIS is not capable by itself of initiating 

any accident. Other than the replacement of 

the detectors themselves and the associated 

hardware, no physical changes to the overall 

plant are being proposed. No changes to the 

overall manner in which the plant is 

operated are being proposed. Therefore, none 

of the proposed changes will 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 

Margin of safety is related to the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to perform their intended 

functions. These barriers include the fuel 

cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure 

boundary, and the containment barriers. The 

modification to replace the SR and IR 

detectors and associated equipment will not 

have any impact on these barriers. In 

addition, the proposed Technical 

Specification changes will not have any 

impact on these barriers. No accident 

mitigating equipment will be adversely 

impacted as a result of the modification. The 

proposed changes do not affect any safety 

analysis conclusions because the SR and IR 

neutron flux trips are not explicitly credited 

in any accident analysis. The replacement 

instrumentation will have overall 

performance capabilities equal to or greater 

than those for the existing instrumentation. 

Therefore, existing safety margins will be 

preserved. None of the proposed changes will 

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: Ms. Lisa F. 

Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and 

Managing Attorney, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church 

Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina; 

Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: May 18, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications to 

adopt Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler TSTF– 

248. TSTF 248 modifies the definition 

of shutdown margin. 

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: 

Criterion 1: 

Does the proposed amendment involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The revision to SDM [shutdown margin] 

definition will result in analytical flexibility 

for determining SDM. Changes in the 

definition will not have an impact on the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The introduction of this definition change 

does not change continued compliance with 

all applicable regulatory requirements and 

design criteria (e.g., train separation, 

redundancy, and single failure). Therefore, 

since all plant systems will continue to 

function as designed, all plant parameters 

will remain within their design limits. As a 

result, the proposed changes will not 

increase the consequences of an accident. 

Based on this discussion, the proposed 

amendments do not significantly increase the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: 

Does the proposed amendment create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Revising the TS [Technical Specifications] 

definition of SDM would not require core 

designers to revise any SDM boron 

calculations. Rather, it would afford the 

analytical flexibility for determining SDM for 

a particular circumstance. 

The proposed changes do not involve any 

change in the design, configuration, or 

operation of the nuclear plant. The current 

plant safety analyses, therefore, remain 

complete and accurate in addressing the 

design basis events and in analyzing plant 

response and consequences. 

The Limiting Conditions for Operations, 

Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety 

Limits specified in the Technical 

Specifications are not affected by the 

proposed changes. As such, the plant 

conditions for which the design basis 

accident analyses were performed remain 

valid. 

The amendment does not introduce a new 

mode of plant operation or new accident 

precursors, does not involve any physical 

alterations to plant configurations or make 

changes to system set points that could 

initiate a new or different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 3: 

Does the proposed amendment involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is related to the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to perform their accident 

mitigation functions. These barriers include 

the fuel and fuel cladding, the reactor coolant 

system, and the containment and 

containment related systems. The proposed 

changes will not impact the reliability of 

these barriers to function. Radiological doses 

to plant operators or to the public will not 

be impacted as a result of the proposed 

change. The change in the TS definition will 

have no impact to these barriers. Adequate 

SDM will continue to be ensured for all 

operational conditions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on 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: Ms. Lisa F. 

Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and 

Managing Attorney, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church 

Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: August 6, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications by 

changing the surveillance requirement 

for the low temperature overpressure 

protection system (LTOP) from 6 

months to 18 months. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
10828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

(1) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

No. This is a revision to the Technical 

Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 

(SR) for performing the channel calibration 

for the power operated relief valve (PORV). 

As such, the TS SR interval extension 

continues to ensure the calibration is 

performed in a time frame supported by 

current analysis. The instrumentation loop 

has been upgraded to an environmentally 

qualified instrumentation loop with 

improved instrument uncertainty and 

reliability. The accidents previously 

evaluated have not changed. 

Therefore, extending the TS SR frequency 

from 6 months to 18 months does not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

(2) Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

No. This revision does not impact the 

LTOP evaluation analysis. The method for 

testing remains the same. The proposed SR 

frequency is supported by an 

environmentally qualified instrumentation 

loop with improved instrument uncertainty 

and reliability. 

Therefore, extending the TS SR frequency 

from 6 months to 18 months will not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any kind of accident 

previously evaluated. 

(3) Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

No. The proposed change does not 

adversely affect any plant safety limits, 

setpoints, or design parameters. The change 

also does not adversely affect the fuel, fuel 

cladding, Reactor Coolant System, or 

Containment Operability. 

Therefore, extending the TS SR frequency 

from 6 months to 18 months 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 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. 

Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and 

Managing Attorney, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church 

Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: August 

31, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications to 

allow one of the two required 230kV 

switchyard 125 VDC power source 

batteries to be inoperable for up to 10 

hours for the purpose of replacing an 

entire battery bank and performing the 

required testing. 

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? 

No. This License Amendment Request 

(LAR) proposes to permit one of the two 230 

kV switchyard 125 VDC batteries to be out of 

service for up to ten days when it is 

necessary to replace and test a complete 

battery (all cells of one battery bank). The 

capacity of each battery, needing only 58 of 

60 cells to be available (i.e., two cells can be 

jumpered out), is sufficient to carry the loads 

of both distribution centers during 

replacement. 

The 230kV switchyard 125 VDC power 

system is credited to provide uninterruptible 

power to specified loads during certain 

design basis events. The probability of any of 

these events occurring is not impacted by 

removing one of the batteries for 

replacement. The consequences associated 

with permitting a 230 kV switchyard 125 

VDC battery to be out of service for up to ten 

days for battery replacement have been 

evaluated. The likelihood of an event 

occurring during the additional time a battery 

bank will be out of service is essentially the 

same as that of an event occurring during the 

24 hour period permitted by the existing 

completion time. Operation in accordance 

with the amendment authorizing this change 

would not involve any accident initiation 

sequences or radiological release pathways 

that could affect the consequences of any 

accident analyzed. Use of this additional 

time for battery replacement will be 

infrequent since battery replacement 

normally is performed at or near the end of 

the twenty year qualified life. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

(2) Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

No. This License Amendment Request 

(LAR) proposes to permit one of the two 230 

kV switchyard 125 VDC batteries to be out of 

service for up to ten days when it is 

necessary to replace and test a complete 

battery (all cells of one battery). Operation in 

accordance with this proposed amendment 

will not result in any new plant equipment, 

alter the present plant configuration, nor 

adversely affect how the plant is currently 

operated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

(3) Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

No. This License Amendment Request 

(LAR) proposes to permit one of the two 230 

kV switchyard 125 VDC batteries to be out of 

service for up to ten days when it is 

necessary to replace and test a complete 

battery (all cells of one battery). 

Since the proposed change will not 

physically alter the present plant 

configuration nor adversely affect how the 

plant is currently operated, the proposed 

change does not adversely affect any plant 

safety limits, setpoints, or design parameters. 

The change also does not adversely affect the 

fuel, fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System 

or containment integrity. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on 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: Ms. Lisa F. 

Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and 

Managing Attorney, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church 

Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina; 

Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; 

Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

York County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

September 30, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications to 

allow performance of testing 

containment spray nozzles for nozzle 

blockage following activities which 

could result in nozzle blockage, rather 

than a fixed periodic basis. Currently 

the testing for nozzle blockage is 

performed every 10 years. 

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: 

[Criterion 1:] 

Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 10829 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

No. The proposed amendment will modify 

CNS [Catawba Nuclear Station] SR 

[surveillance requirement] 3.6.6.7, MNS 

[McGuire Nuclear Station] SR 3.6.6.7, and 

ONS [Oconee Nuclear Station] SR 3.6.5.8 to 

change the frequency for verifying spray 

nozzles are unobstructed. The proposed 

change modifies the frequency for 

performance of a surveillance test which 

does not impact any failure modes that could 

lead to an accident. The proposed frequency 

change does not affect the ability of the spray 

nozzles or spray system to perform its 

accident mitigation function as assumed and 

therefore there is no effect on the 

consequence of any accident. Verification of 

no blockage continues to be required, but 

now verification will be performed following 

activities that could result in nozzle 

blockage. Based on this discussion, the 

proposed amendment does not increase the 

probability or consequence of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

[Criterion 2:] 

Does the proposed amendment create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

No. The proposed amendment will modify 

CNS SR 3.6.6.7, MNS SR 3.6.6.7, and ONS SR 

3.6.5.8 to change the frequency for verifying 

spray nozzles are unobstructed. The spray 

systems are not being physically modified 

and there is no impact on the capability of 

the system to perform accident mitigation 

functions. No system setpoints are being 

modified and no changes are being made to 

the method in which borated water is 

delivered to the spray nozzles. The testing 

requirements imposed by this proposed 

change to check for nozzle blockage 

following activities that could cause nozzle 

blockage do not introduce new failure modes 

for the system. The proposed amendment 

does not introduce accident initiators or 

malfunctions that would cause a new or 

different kind of accident. Therefore, the 

proposed amendment does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

[Criterion 3:] 

Does the proposed amendment involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

No. The proposed amendment will modify 

CNS SR 3.6.6.7, MNS SR 3.6.6.7, and ONS SR 

3.6.5.8 to change the frequency for verifying 

spray nozzles are unobstructed. The 

proposed change does not change or 

introduce any new setpoints at which 

mitigating functions are initiated. No changes 

to the design parameters of the spray systems 

are being proposed. There are no changes in 

system operation being proposed by this 

change that would impact an established 

safety margin. The proposed change modifies 

the frequency for verification of nozzle 

operability in such a way that continued high 

confidence exists that the spray systems will 

continue to function as designed. Therefore, 

based on the above, 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 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. 

Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and 

Managing Attorney, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church 

Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–286, Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, 

Westchester County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

November 19, 2009, as supplemented by 

letter dated January 28, 2010. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change will modify the 

test acceptance criteria in Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10 for the Diesel 

Generator endurance surveillance test. 

The proposed change will also 

incorporate changes to the Standard 

Technical Specifications made by 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) 238–A, Revision 3 and TSTF– 

276–A, Revision 2. Specifically, the 

proposed change will modify SR notes 

in TS 3.8.1 and TS 3.8.4 

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? 

No. The proposed changes revise the 

acceptance criteria to be applied to an 

existing surveillance test of the facility 

emergency diesel generators (EDGs), allows 

deviation from that acceptance criteria for 

certain grid conditions, and allows testing in 

modes that is normally not done. Performing 

a surveillance test is done under conditions 

where it is not an accident initiator and does 

not increase the probability of an accident 

occurring. The proposed new acceptance 

criteria will assure that the EDGs are capable 

of carrying the peak electrical loading 

assumed in the various existing safety 

analyses which take credit for the operation 

of the EDGs. Establishing acceptance criteria 

that bound existing analyses validates the 

related assumption used in those analyses 

regarding the capability of equipment to 

mitigate accident conditions. The deviation 

allowed for grid conditions does not affect 

the capability of the testing to achieve these 

purposes. The proposed change to allow 

testing in modes normally restricted requires 

an evaluation to ensure, prior to performing 

the test, that the potential consequences are 

capable of being addressed by existing 

procedures and does not create transients or 

conditions that could significantly affect the 

possibility of an accident. Therefore the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the change create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

No. The proposed changes revise the test 

acceptance criteria for a specific performance 

test conducted on the existing EDG, allows 

deviation from that acceptance criteria for 

certain grid conditions, and allows testing in 

modes that is normally not done. The 

proposed changes do not involve installation 

of new equipment or modification of existing 

equipment, so no new equipment failure 

modes are introduced. The proposed revision 

to the EDG surveillance test acceptance 

criteria also is not a change to the way that 

the equipment or facility is operated and no 

new accident initiators are created. The 

proposed testing on line must be evaluated 

to assure plant safety is maintained or 

enhanced, inherent in such an evaluation 

would be that the testing does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident. Therefore the proposed change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

No. The conduct of performance tests on 

safety-related plant equipment is a means of 

assuring that the equipment is capable of 

maintaining the margin of safety established 

in the safety analyses for the facility. The 

proposed change in the EDG technical 

specification surveillance test acceptance 

criteria is consistent with values assumed in 

existing safety analyses and is consistent 

with the design rating of the EDGs. The 

allowance for certain grid conditions does 

not alter this conclusion since the power 

factors are conservatively determined. 

Testing allowed in modes when it is not 

normally performed is limited to conditions 

where an evaluation is performed to assure 

plant safety is maintained or enhanced. 

Therefore the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. 

Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 

Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 

10601. 

NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
10830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 

No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: 

December 18, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

incorporate the use of alternate 

methodologies for the calculation of 

reactor pressure vessel beltline weld 

initial reference temperatures, the 

calculation of the adjusted reference 

temperatures (ARTs), the development 

of the reactor pressure vessel pressuretemperature (P–T) limit curves, and the 

low temperature reactor coolant system 

(RCS) overpressure analysis into 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.4. The 

amendment would also revise the 

analysis requirement for the low 

temperature RCS overpressure events 

from 21 to 32 Effective Full Power Years 

(EFPY) contained in Operating License 

(OL) Condition 2.C(3)(d). An application 

that addressed similar issues was 

previously submitted on April 15, 2009, 

and the notice of that application was 

provided in the Federal Register on 

June 16, 2009 (72 FR 28577). Since the 

licensee eliminated one of the alternate 

methodologies for the calculation of the 

adjusted reference temperature (as 

described in the April 15, 2009, 

application) and replacing it with the 

existing Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC)-approved 

methodology, which is described in 

Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, 

‘‘Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor 

Vessel Materials’’, in December 19, 2009, 

the application is being renoticed in its 

entirety. The notice supersedes the 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on June 16, 2009. 

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 amendment request proposes two 

changes to the TS/OL. The first change 

incorporates the use of alternative 

methodologies to develop the [Davis-Besse 

Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1] DBNPS 

P–T limit curves and [low temperature over 

pressure] LTOP limits into TS 5.6.4 to 

augment the existing listed methodology of 

BAW–10046A, Revision 2. The second 

change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to 

reflect the revised LTOP analysis is valid to 

32 [Effective Full Power Years] EFPY. 

The first change incorporates the use of 

Topical Report BAW–2308, Revisions 1–A 

and 2–A and [American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers] ASME Code Cases N– 

588 and N–640. The topical report and ASME 

code cases have been approved or accepted 

for use by the NRC (provided that any 

conditions/limitations are satisfied). The 

proposed additions to the methodologies for 

the reactor vessel P–T curve and LTOP limit 

development provide an acceptable means of 

satisfying the requirements of 10 CFR 50, 

Appendix G. The proposed additions do not 

alter the design, function, or any operation of 

any plant equipment. Therefore, the 

proposed additions do not affect the 

probability or consequences of any 

previously evaluated accidents, including 

reactor coolant pressure boundary failures. 

The second change is considered 

administrative in nature and reflects the 

revised methodologies. It will not alter the 

design, function, or operation of any plant 

equipment. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not affect the probability or 

consequences of any previously evaluated 

accidents. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The amendment request proposes two 

changes to the TS/OL. The first change 

incorporates the use of alternative 

methodologies to develop the DBNPS P–T 

limit curves and LTOP limits into TS 5.6.4 

to augment the existing listed methodology of 

BAW–10046A, Revision 2. The second 

change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to 

reflect that the revised analysis is valid to 32 

EFPY. 

The first change incorporates 

methodologies that either have been 

approved or accepted for use by the NRC 

(provided that any conditions/limitations are 

satisfied). The changes do not alter the 

design, function, or operation of any plant 

equipment. The P–T limit curves and LTOP 

limits will provide the same level of 

protection to the reactor coolant boundary as 

was previously evaluated. Therefore, the 

proposed changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The second change is considered 

administrative in nature and reflects the 

revised methodologies. It will not alter the 

design or operation of any plant equipment. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The amendment request proposes two 

changes to the TS/OL. The first change 

incorporates the use of alternative 

methodologies to develop the DBNPS P–T 

limit curves and LTOP limits into TS 5.6.4 

to augment the existing listed methodology of 

BAW–10046A, Revision 2. The second 

change revises OL Condition 2.C(3)(d) to 

reflect that the revised analysis is valid to 32 

EFPY. The first change incorporates 

methodologies that either have been 

approved or accepted for use by the NRC 

(provided that any conditions/limitations are 

satisfied). The second change is considered 

administrative in nature and reflects the 

revised methodologies. The changes do not 

alter the design, function, or operation of any 

plant equipment. The P–T limit curves and 

LTOP limits will provide the same level of 

protection to the reactor coolant boundary as 

was previously evaluated. 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: David W. 

Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 

Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76 

South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. 

NRC Branch Chief: Stephen Campbell. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: 

November 30, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify conditions and associated 

actions to Technical Specification 3.8.1, 

‘‘AC [Alternating Current] Sources 

Operating.’’ The proposed amendment 

would revise the Completion Time for 

restoring one or more inoperable diesel 

generators (DGs) in one train to an 

operable status and increase the 

Completion Time for confirming that 

the other DGs are not impacted by a 

common cause failure. 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 diesel generators (DGs) are designed as 

backup alternating current (ac) power sources 

in the event of loss of offsite power. The 

proposed changes to Completion Times 

associated with determining inoperable DGs 

are not subject to common cause failure and 

restoration of inoperable DGs and the 

deletion of the note referencing the C–S DG 

do not change the conditions, operating 

configurations, or minimum amount of 

operating equipment assumed in the safety 

analysis accident mitigation. No changes are 

proposed in the manner in which the DGs 

provide plant protection. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 10831 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes associated with 

determining inoperable DGs are not subject 

to common cause failure and restoration of 

inoperable DGs and the deletion of the note 

referencing the C–S DG do not involve a 

change in design, configuration, or method of 

operation of the plant. The proposed changes 

will not alter the manner in which 

equipment operation is initiated, nor will the 

functional demands on credited equipment 

be changed. The capability of the DGs to 

perform their required safety function will 

not be affected. The proposed changes do not 

affect the interaction of the DGs with any 

system whose failure or malfunction can 

initiate an accident. As such, no new failure 

modes are being introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The DGs are designed as backup AC power 

sources in the event of loss of offsite power. 

The proposed changes associated with 

determining inoperable DGs are not subject 

to common cause failure and restoration of 

inoperable DGs and the deletion of the note 

referencing the C–S DG do not change 

conditions, operating configurations, or 

minimum amount of operating equipment 

assumed in the safety analysis accident 

mitigation. The proposed changes do not 

alter the plant design, including instrument 

setpoints, nor do they alter the assumptions 

contained in the safety analyses. No changes 

are proposed in the manner in which the DGs 

provide plant protection or which create new 

modes of plant operation. 

Therefore, the 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 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: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: 

December 16, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise the 

approved fire protection program as 

described in the Wolf Creek Generating 

Station (WCGS) Updated Safety 

Analysis Report (USAR) to allow use of 

the fire-resistive cable for certain power 

and control cables associated with two 

motor-operated valves on Train B 

Component Cooling Water System. This 

will be a deviation from certain 

technical commitments to Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

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

described in Appendix 9.5E of the 

WCGS USAR. 

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 design function of structures, systems 

and components are not impacted by the 

proposed change. The proposed change 

involves the use of fire-resistive cable at 

WCGS for certain power and control cables 

associated with two motor-operated valves 

(EGHV0016 and EGHV0054) on Train B 

Component Cooling Water System and will 

not initiate an event. The proposed change 

does not alter or prevent the ability of 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

from performing their intended function to 

mitigate the consequences of an initiating 

event within the assumed acceptance limits. 

The Meggitt Si 2400 fire-resistive cable has 

been independently tested to applicable 

requirements and the implementation design 

reflects the test results. Therefore, the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated is not increased. Equipment 

required to mitigate an accident remains 

capable of performing the assumed function. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will not alter the 

requirements or function for systems 

required during accident conditions. The 

design function of structures, systems and 

components are not impacted by the 

proposed change. No new or different 

accidents result from implementing Meggitt 

Si 2400 fire-resistive cable in Fire Areas A– 

16 and A–21. The Meggitt Si 2400 fireresistive cable has been independently tested 

to applicable requirements and the 

implementation design reflects the test 

results. The use of Meggitt Si 2400 fireresistive cable is not a significant change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. 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 for an unacceptable period 

of time without mitigating actions. The 

proposed change does not affect systems that 

respond to safely shut down the plant and to 

maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 

condition. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 

2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20037. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: 

December 16, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise the 

approved fire protection program as 

described in the Wolf Creek Generating 

Station (WCGS) Updated Safety 

Analysis Report (USAR) to allow use of 

the fire-resistive cable for certain power 

and control cables associated with two 

motor-operated valves on Train B 

Component Cooling Water System. This 

will be a deviation from certain 

technical commitments to Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

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

described in Appendix 9.5E of the 

WCGS USAR. 

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? 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
10832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 

Response: No. 

The design function of structures, systems 

and components are not impacted by the 

proposed change. The proposed change 

involves the use of fire-resistive cable at 

WCGS for certain power and control cables 

associated with two motor-operated valves 

(EGHV0016 and EGHV0054) on Train B 

Component Cooling Water System and will 

not initiate an event. The proposed change 

does not alter or prevent the ability of 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

from performing their intended function to 

mitigate the consequences of an initiating 

event within the assumed acceptance limits. 

The Meggitt Si 2400 fire-resistive cable has 

been independently tested to applicable 

requirements and the implementation design 

reflects the test results. Therefore, the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated is not increased. Equipment 

required to mitigate an accident remains 

capable of performing the assumed function. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will not alter the 

requirements or function for systems 

required during accident conditions. The 

design function of structures, systems and 

components are not impacted by the 

proposed change. No new or different 

accidents result from implementing Meggitt 

Si 2400 fire-resistive cable in Fire Areas A– 

16 and A–21. The Meggitt Si 2400 fireresistive cable has been independently tested 

to applicable requirements and the 

implementation design reflects the test 

results. The use of Meggitt Si 2400 fireresistive cable is not a significant change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. 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 for an unacceptable period 

of time without mitigating actions. The 

proposed change does not affect systems that 

respond to safely shutdown the plant and to 

maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 

condition. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 

2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20037. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

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 Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, 

Westchester County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 29, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 21 and 

December 22, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment established a more 

restrictive acceptance criterion for 

surveillance requirement (SR) 3.8.6.6 

regarding periodic verification of 

capacity for the affected station 

batteries. 

Date of issuance: February 24, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 30 days. 

Amendment No.: 264. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

26: The amendment revised the License 

and the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23444). 

The supplemental letters dated 

September 21 and December 22, 2009, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 25, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

changes remove the provisions 

contained in Technical Specification 

(TS) 3/4.4.8, which specify 

requirements relating to the structural 

integrity of American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code 

Class 1, 2 and 3 components. This 

specification is redundant to the 

requirements contained within Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Section 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and 

standards.’’ With this change, the 

pressure boundary structural integrity of 

ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 10833 

components will continue to be 

maintained through the facility’s 

compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a. 

Date of issuance: February 24, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 199 and 160. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

39 and NPF–85. These amendments 

revised the license and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18254). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Docket Nos. 50–30, and 

50–185. Erie County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: January 

9, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated 

October 6, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment adds a condition to each 

license requiring that the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

assess the residual radioactivity and 

demonstrate that the stream bed and 

banks of Plum Brook between the Plum 

Brook Station boundary and Sandusky 

Bay meet the radiological criteria for 

unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 

20.1402 prior to terminating Licenses 

TR–3 and R–93. 

Date of issuance: February 1, 2010. 

Effective date: February 1, 2010. 

Amendment Nos.: 14 and 10, 

respectively. 

Possession Only License Nos. TR–3 

and R–93: The amendment revises both 

licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20751). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation Report, dated 

February 1, 2010. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Docket Nos. 50–30, and 

50–185. Erie County, Ohio (TAC NO. 

J00301) 

Date of amendment request: January 

9, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated 

October 6, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment adds a condition to each 

license requiring that the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

assess the residual radioactivity and 

demonstrate that the stream bed and 

banks of Plum Brook between the Plum 

Brook Station boundary and Sandusky 

Bay meet the radiological criteria for 

unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 

20.1402 prior to terminating Licenses 

TR–3 and R–93. 

Date of issuance: February 1, 2010. 

Effective date: February 1, 2010. 

Amendment Nos.: 14 and 10, 

respectively 

Possession Only License Nos. TR–3 

and R–93: The amendment revises both 

licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20751) 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation Report, dated 

February 1, 2010. 

No Significant Hazards Consideration 

Comments Received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 

and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendments: 

April 9, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments relocate Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements 

pertaining to communications during 

refueling operations (TS 3/4.9.5), 

manipulator crane operability (TS 3/ 

4.9.6), and crane travel (TS 3/4.9.7) to 

the Technical Requirements Manual. 

Date of issuance: February 17, 2010. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 293 and 277. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

70 and DPR–75: The amendments 

revised the TSs and the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 25, 2009 (74 FR 

42929). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated February 17, 

2010. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day 

of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Allen G. Howe, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4523 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 05000271; License No. DPR– 

28; EA–10–034; NRC–2010–0089] 

In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear 

Operations; Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Station; Demand for Information 

I 

Entergy Nuclear Operations (Entergy) 

is the holder of Facility Operating 

License No. DPR–28, issued by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on February 

28, 1973. The license authorizes the 

operation of the Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station (Vermont 

Yankee) in accordance with conditions 

specified therein. The facility is located 

in Vernon, Vermont. 

II 

The NRC has been monitoring the 

activities between Entergy and the State 

of Vermont regarding the veracity of 

statements made by Entergy officials 

and staff to the State related to 

underground piping at Vermont Yankee. 

On February 24, 2010, Entergy verbally 

informed the NRC of actions that 

Entergy has taken regarding certain 

employees, including some who were 

removed from their site positions at 

Vermont Yankee and placed on 

administrative leave, as a result of its 

independent internal investigation into 

alleged contradictory or misleading 

information provided to the State of 

Vermont that was not corrected. While 

the NRC does not have jurisdiction over 

the communications between Entergy 

and the State of Vermont, the NRC is 

aware that some of these individuals 

have responsibilities that involve 

decision-making communications 

material to the NRC and/or involve 

NRC-regulated activities, such as 

Regulatory Licensing, Security, and 

Emergency Preparedness Programs. 

III 

The NRC relies on licensees to 

provide complete and accurate 

information in order to make certain 

licensing and oversight decisions, as 

required by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 50.9. To date, 

the NRC has not identified any 

instances in which Entergy staff or 

officials have provided incomplete or 

inaccurate information to the NRC. 

However, in light of the above, the NRC 

requires additional information from 

Entergy to confirm that information 

provided by these individuals is 

accurate and the impact of the 

organizational changes is assessed in the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES