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
10834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Notices 

areas of regulatory program performance 

and safety culture. In addition, Entergy 

has not provided the NRC with 

information describing how the recent 

personnel changes resulting from the 

independent internal investigation will 

affect Entergy’s ability to implement 

NRC-regulated programs at Vermont 

Yankee, and any compensatory 

measures Entergy has taken in response. 

The NRC will independently review and 

assess the results of Entergy’s 

independent investigation, and 

determine any implications on NRCregulated activities at the facility. 

IV 

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 

161c, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR 

2.204 and 10 CFR 50.54(f), in order for 

the Commission to determine whether 

Vermont Yankee’s license should be 

modified, suspended, or revoked, or 

other enforcement action taken to 

ensure compliance with NRC regulatory 

requirements, Entergy is required to 

submit to the Regional Administrator, 

NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King 

of Prussia, PA, 19406 (with copies to the 

Director, Office of Enforcement and to 

the Assistant General Counsel for 

Materials Litigation and Enforcement, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001), within 30 

days of the date of this Demand for 

Information, the following information, 

in writing, and under oath or 

affirmation: 

1. Information regarding whether 

communications over the past five years 

to the NRC by the aforementioned 

employees that were material to NRCregulated activities were complete and 

accurate, and the basis for that 

conclusion. The communications shall 

include, but not be limited to, required 

reports to the NRC, interactions with 

NRC inspection staff, and submittals to 

support NRC licensing decisions, 

including the license renewal process. 

The information shall also describe any 

impacts on safety and security for any 

communications to the NRC found to be 

incomplete or inaccurate. 

2. Any corrective actions or 

compensatory measures taken or 

planned to address any incomplete or 

inaccurate communications provided to 

the NRC by the aforementioned 

employees identified by your review 

conducted in response to Item 1. 

3. A description of how, in light of the 

organizational changes made in 

response to the independent internal 

investigation, Entergy is providing for 

appropriate implementation of NRCregulated programs (e.g., Regulatory 

Licensing, Security, Emergency 

Preparedness, etc.) 

4. A description of how Entergy is 

identifying and responding to any 

adverse implications to the Vermont 

Yankee site safety culture as a result of 

this investigation, its findings, and the 

actions taken regarding the 

aforementioned employees. 

5. Confirmation that Entergy intends 

to make the independent internal 

investigation available to the NRC to 

allow the NRC to independently 

evaluate Entergy’s investigation for any 

impact on NRC-regulated activities. 

The Director, Office of Enforcement, 

may relax or rescind any of these items 

for good cause shown. 

V 

After reviewing your response, the 

NRC will determine whether further 

action is necessary to ensure 

compliance with regulatory 

requirements. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of March, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Roy P. Zimmerman, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4934 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–397; NRC–2010–0084] 

Energy Northwest; Columbia 

Generating Station; Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, 

‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the 

implementation date for one new 

requirement of 10 CFR part 73, 

‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ for Facility Operating 

License No. DPR–46, issued to Energy 

Northwest (the licensee), for operation 

of the Columbia Generating Station 

(CGS), located in Benton County, 

Washington. Therefore, as required by 

10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed an 

environmental assessment. Based on the 

results of the environmental assessment, 

the NRC is issuing a finding of no 

significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

Energy Northwest from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for one new requirement of 10 CFR part 

73. Specifically, Energy Northwest 

would be granted an exemption from 

being in full compliance with a new 

requirement contained in 10 CFR 73.55 

by the March 31, 2010, deadline. Energy 

Northwest has proposed an alternate 

full compliance implementation date of 

May 15, 2010, 45 days beyond the date 

required by 10 CFR part 73. The 

proposed action, an extension of the 

schedule for completion of one action 

required by the revised 10 CFR part 73, 

does not involve any physical changes 

to the reactor, fuel, plant structures, 

support structures, water, or land at the 

Energy Northwest site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

January 27, 2010. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time to perform the required upgrades to 

the Energy Northwest security system 

due to manufacturing delays of one item 

at the vendor. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption. The staff has 

concluded that the proposed action to 

extend the implementation deadline 

would not significantly affect plant 

safety and would not have a significant 

adverse effect on the probability of an 

accident occurring. 

The proposed action would not result 

in an increased radiological hazard 

beyond those previously analyzed in the 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact made by the 

Commission in promulgating its 

revisions to 10 CFR part 73 as discussed 

in a Federal Register notice dated 

March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926). There 

will be no change to radioactive 

effluents that affect radiation exposures 

to plant workers and members of the 

public. Therefore, no changes or 

different types of radiological impacts 

are expected as a result of the proposed 

exemption. 

The proposed action does not result 

in changes to land use or water use, or 

result in changes to the quality or 

quantity of non-radiological effluents. 

No changes to the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonVerDate Nov<24>2008 19:04 Mar 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES