Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 40233 

number (202) 693–3008 (this is not a 

toll-free number) or by e-mail: 

gibbons.scott@dol.gov. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

August, 2009. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19196 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of a Change in Status of an 

Extended Benefit (EB) Period for Texas 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

change in benefit period eligibility 

under the EB program for Texas. 

The following change has occurred 

since the publication of the last notice 

regarding Texas’ EB status: 

• Texas has modified its law by 

adding a total unemployment rate (TUR) 

trigger retroactive to February 1, 2009. 

As a result, Texas has retroactively 

triggered ‘‘on’’ to an extended benefit 

period for weeks of unemployment 

beginning May 3, 2009. Eligible 

claimants will be able to collect up to 

an additional 13 weeks of 

Unemployment Insurance benefits. 

Information for Claimants 

The duration of benefits payable in 

the EB program, and the terms and 

conditions on which they are payable, 

are governed by the Federal-State 

Extended Unemployment Compensation 

Act of 1970, as amended, and the 

operating instructions issued to the 

states by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

In the case of a state beginning an EB 

period, the State Workforce Agency will 

furnish a written notice of potential 

entitlement to each individual who has 

exhausted all rights to regular benefits 

and is potentially eligible for EB (20 

CFR 615.13(c)(1)). Persons who believe 

they may be entitled to EB or who wish 

to inquire about their rights under the 

program should contact their State 

Workforce Agency. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Workforce 

Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Frances Perkins Bldg., Room S– 

4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone 

number (202) 693–3008 (this is not a 

toll-free number) or by e-mail: 

gibbons.scott@dol.gov. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

August, 2009. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19203 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of a Change in Status of an 

Extended Benefit (EB) Period for 

Arizona, Delaware, and New York 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

change in benefit period eligibility 

under the EB program for Arizona, 

Delaware, and New York. 

The following change has occurred 

since the publication of the last notice 

regarding these States’ EB statuses: 

• Total unemployment rate (TUR) 

data for June 2009, released on July 17, 

2009, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

brought the three-month average 

seasonally adjusted TURs in Arizona, 

Delaware, and New York to the 

threshold for triggering ‘‘on’’ to a high 

unemployment period (HUP) under the 

EB program. Beginning on August 2, 

2009, eligible claimants will be able to 

collect up to 20 weeks of additional 

Unemployment Insurance benefits. A 

Federal Register notice must be issued 

shortly, announcing the change in the 

EB status for these states. 

Information for Claimants 

The duration of benefits payable in 

the EB Program, and the terms and 

conditions on which they are payable, 

are governed by the Federal-State 

Extended Unemployment Compensation 

Act of 1970, as amended, and the 

operating instructions issued to the 

states by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

In the case of a state beginning a HUP 

period, the State Workforce Agency will 

furnish a written notice of potential 

entitlement to each individual who may 

be eligible for increased benefits due to 

the HUP (20 CFR 615.13 (c) (1)). 

Persons who wish to inquire about 

their rights under the program should 

contact their State Workforce Agency. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Workforce 

Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Frances Perkins Bldg., Room S– 

4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone 

number (202) 693–3008 (this is not a 

toll-free number) or by e-mail: 

gibbons.scott@dol.gov. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

August, 2009. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19201 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0347] 

Biweekly Notice Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC) 

is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from July 16, 

2009, to July 29, 2009. The last biweekly 

notice was published on July 28, 2009 

(74 FR 37245). 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
40234 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 

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 

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 petitioner/ 

requestor 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 petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/requestor 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/ 

requestor to relief. A petitioner/ 

requestor 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, 

which the NRC promulgated in August 

28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E–Filing 

process requires participants to submit 

and serve all adjudicatory documents 

over the Internet, or in some cases to 

mail copies on electronic storage media. 

Participants may not submit paper 

copies of their filings unless they seek 

an exemption in accordance with the 

procedures described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E–Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

petitioner/requestor should contact the 

Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling 

(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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 40235 

participating; and/or (2) creation of an 

electronic docket for the proceeding 

(even in instances in which the 

petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or 

representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each 

petitioner/requestor will need to 

download the Workplace Forms 

ViewerTM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

component of the E–Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and 

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 

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/applycertificates.html. 

Once a petitioner/requestor has 

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a 

docket created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it 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 filer submits its 

documents through EIE. To be timely, 

an electronic filing must be submitted to 

the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the due date. Upon 

receipt of a transmission, the E–Filing 

system time-stamps the document and 

sends the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

EIE system also distributes an e-mail 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E–Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory e-filing system 

may seek assistance through the 

‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html or by calling the 

NRC Meta-System Help Desk, which is 

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

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. The 

Meta-System Help Desk can be 

contacted by telephone at 1–866–672– 

7640 or by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

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. 

Non-timely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission, the presiding officer, or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the request and/or petition should 

be granted and/or the contentions 

should be admitted, based on a 

balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

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, an Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board, or a 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 

submissions. 

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. 

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 

50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 

Michigan 

Date of amendment request: June 10, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would amend 

the Fermi 2 Plant Operating License, 

Appendix A, Technical Specifications 

(TS) to revise Technical Specification 

Table 3.3.8.1–1, Function 2 (Degraded 

Voltage). The change identifies an 

additional time delay as a result of a 

plant modification to address the backfit 

issues discussed in Reference 3. 

Specifically, this proposed amendment 

adds a new time delay logic associated 

with Function 2 for a degraded voltage 

concurrent with a Loss of Coolant 

Accident (LOCA). This will bring Fermi 

2 into full compliance with 10 CFR part 

50, Appendix A, General Design 

Criterion (GDC)–17, ‘‘Electric Power 

Systems.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below. 

1. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

Providing the additional logic ensures the 

timely transfer of plant safety system loads to 

the Emergency Diesel Generators in the event 

sustained degraded bus voltage is present 

with a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) 

signal. This ensures that Emergency Core 

Cooling System (ECCS) equipment is 

powered from the emergency diesel 

generators in a timely manner. This change 

is needed to bring Fermi 2 into full 

compliance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 

A, General Design Criterion–17, ‘‘Electric 

Power Systems,’’ and to meet the 

requirements of NUREG–0800 Rev. 2, Branch 

Technical Position (BTP) Power Systems 

Branch (PSB)–1. The shorter time delay 

supports the time assumed in the accident 

analysis for water injection into the reactor 

vessel under degraded voltage conditions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. The proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
40236 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not affect any 

of the current degraded voltage logic schemes 

or any other equipment provided to mitigate 

accidents. It utilizes existing logic systems to 

isolate safety buses from the grid and 

repower those safety buses using the onsite 

emergency power system. The change adds 

logic to ensure that in the case of a sustained 

degraded voltage condition concurrent with 

a LOCA signal, the safety electrical power 

buses will be transferred from the offsite 

power system to the onsite power system in 

a timely manner to ensure water is injected 

into the reactor vessel in the time assumed 

and evaluated in the accident analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant reduction in the margin of 

safety. 

This proposed change implements a new 

design for a reduced time delay to isolate 

safety buses from offsite power if a Loss of 

Coolant Accident were to occur concurrent 

with a sustained degraded voltage condition. 

This ensures that emergency core cooling 

system pumps inject water into the reactor 

vessel within the time assumed and 

evaluated in the accident analysis, consistent 

with the requirements of BTP PSB–1 section 

B.1.b. and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, 

General Design Criterion–17, ‘‘Electric Power 

Systems.’’ 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: David G. 

Pettinari, Legal Department, 688 WCB, 

Detroit Edison Company, 2000 2nd 

Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226–1279. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

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: February 

27, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications to be 

consistent with Revision 0 of Technical 

Specification Task force (TSTF) TSTF 

511, ‘‘Eliminate Working Hour 

Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 

Compliance with 10 CFR [Code of 

Federal Regulations] part 26.’’ 

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: The proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR part 

26, subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant or alter the manner 

in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

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. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

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: Undine Shoop. 

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: February 

27, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications to be 

consistent with Revision 0 of Technical 

Specification Task force (TSTF) TSTF 

511, ‘‘Eliminate Working Hour 

Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 

Compliance with 10 CFR [Code of 

Federal Regulations] part 26.’’ 

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: The proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR part 

26, subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 40237 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant or alter the manner 

in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

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. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

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: Undine Shoop. 

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: February 

27, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the Technical Specifications to be 

consistent with Revision 0 of Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF 

511, ‘‘Eliminate Working Hour 

Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 

Compliance with 10 CFR [Code of 

Federal Regulations] part 26.’’ 

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: The proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR part 

26, subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to plant or alter the manner 

in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

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. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

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: Undine Shoop. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
40238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit No.1, DeWitt County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: April 22, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the inservice testing (IST) requirements 

from the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code, Section 

XI, to the ASME Code for Operation and 

Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants 

(OM Code) and applicable addenda. 

This change would eliminate the ASME 

Code inconsistency between the IST 

program and the technical specification 

(TS) as required by Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

50.55a(f)(5)(ii). Additionally, the 

amendment would extend the 

applicability of surveillance 

requirement (SR) 3.0.2 provisions to 

other normal and accelerated 

frequencies specified as 2 years or less 

in the IST program. Finally, the 

amendment will remove the phrase 

‘‘including applicable supports’’ from 

TS section 5.5.6. TS section 5.5.6, IST 

Program, and the associated TS Bases 

would be revised under this TS 

amendment. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration which is presented below: 

1. Does the change involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes revise [technical 

specification] TS 5.5.6 for [Clinton Power 

Station] CPS Unit 1 to conform to the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and 

standards,’’ paragraph (f) regarding the 

inservice testing of pumps and valves 

beginning with the Third 10-year Interval. 

The current TS reference the [American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 

requirements for the inservice testing of 

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components, 

including applicable supports. The proposed 

changes would reference the ASME 

[Operation and Maintenances of Nuclear 

Power Plants] OM Code, which is consistent 

with 10 CFR 50.55a, paragraph (f), ‘‘Inservice 

testing requirements,’’ and approved for use 

by the NRC. In addition, provisions 

modifying TS 5.5.6, item b, clarify that 

[surveillance requirement] SR 3.0.2 is only 

applied to those inservice testing frequencies 

of two years or less. The definitions of the 

frequencies are not changed by this license 

amendment request. The change removing 

the phrase ‘‘including applicable supports’’ 

clarifies the scope of components in the [inservice testing] IST Program. 

The proposed changes do not affect any 

accident initiators, do not affect the ability of 

CPS to successfully respond to previously 

evaluated accidents and do not affect 

radiological assumptions used in the 

evaluations. Thus, the radiological 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated are not increased. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes revise TS 5.5.6 for 

CPS Unit 1 to conform to the requirements 

of 10 CFR 50.55a(f) regarding the inservice 

testing of pumps and valves beginning with 

the Third 10-year Interval. The current TS 

reference the ASME Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code, section XI, requirements for the 

inservice testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2, 

and 3 components, including applicable 

supports. The proposed changes would 

reference the ASME OM Code, which is 

consistent with the 10 CFR 50.55a(f) and 

approved for use by the NRC. In addition, 

provisions modifying TS 5.5.6, item b, clarify 

that SR 3.0.2 is only applied to those 

inservice testing frequencies of two years or 

less. The definitions of the frequencies are 

not changed by this license amendment 

request. The change removing the phrase 

‘‘including applicable supports’’ clarifies the 

scope of components in the IST Program. 

The proposed changes to TS section 5.5.6 

do not affect the performance of any CPS 

structure, system, or component credited 

with mitigating any accident previously 

evaluated and do not introduce any new 

modes of system operation or failure 

mechanisms. In addition, the proposed 

changes do not revise the frequency or 

method of testing the components covered by 

the IST program. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the change involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes revise TS 5.5.6 for 

CPS Unit 1 to conform to the requirements 

of 10 CFR 50.55a(f) regarding the inservice 

testing of pumps and valves beginning with 

the Third 10-year Interval. The current TS 

reference the ASME Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code, section XI, requirements for the 

inservice testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2, 

and 3 components, including applicable 

supports. The proposed changes would 

reference the ASME OM Code, which is 

consistent with the 10 CFR 50.55a(f) and 

approved for use by the NRC. In addition, 

provisions modifying TS 5.5.6, item b, clarify 

that SR 3.0.2 is only applied to those 

inservice testing frequencies of two years or 

less. The definitions of the frequencies are 

not changed by this license amendment 

request. The change removing the phrase 

‘‘including applicable supports’’ clarifies the 

scope of components in the IST Program. 

The proposed changes do not modify the 

safety limits or setpoints at which proactive 

actions are initiated and do not change the 

requirements governing operation or 

availability of safety equipment assumed to 

operate to preserve the margin of safety. 

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: Mr. Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. 

Campbell. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company (the 

licensee), Docket No. 50–316, Donald C. 

Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (CNP–2), 

Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: March 

19, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would adopt 

a new analysis of a large break loss-ofcoolant accident (LBLOCA) for CNP–2. 

The new analysis is performed using the 

NRC-approved methodology set forth in 

Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP– 

16009–P–A, ‘‘Realistic Large-Break 

LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using 

the Automated Statistical Treatment of 

Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM).’’ The 

licensee proposed to endorse this 

methodology by a revision to Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘Core 

Operating Limits Report (COLR).’’ 

The licensee is also requesting NRC 

approval to revise TS 3.4.1, ‘‘RCS 

[Reactor Coolant System] Pressure, 

Temperature, and Flow Departure from 

Nucleate Boiling Limits,’’ to change the 

minimum reactor coolant system (RCS) 

total flow rate from 366,400 to 354,000 

gallons per minute (gpm). The current 

value is a minimum measured flow 

value which includes allowances for 

flow uncertainty. Current practice is 

that the thermal design flow value, 

which does not include allowances for 

flow measurement uncertainty, be 

specified in TSs. The minimum 

measured flow is specified in the COLR. 

That value is currently 354,000 gpm and 

is also reflected in the new LBLOCA 

analyses. 

The licensee also proposes to amend 

TS 3.5.2, ‘‘ECCS—Operating.’’ 

Condition D allows the unit to be in 

Mode 1, 2, or 3 for an unlimited amount 

of time if a Safety Injection (SI) system 

cross-tie valve is closed, provided that 

thermal power is reduced to less than or 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 40239 

equal to a specified value. The new 

LBLOCA analysis being proposed does 

not address a condition in which an SI 

cross-tie valve is closed. Therefore, the 

allowance provided by Condition D will 

be deleted, as well as reference to 

Condition D in TS 3.5.2, Conditions A 

and C. 

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 of 

occurrence or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The current minimum departure from 

nucleate boiling ratio Technical Specification 

(TS) specify a minimum measured flow value 

in the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) total 

flow requirement. I&M is proposing to 

replace this minimum measured flow value 

with a thermal design flow value. The 

current minimum departure from nucleate 

boiling ratio TS also require that RCS total 

flow meet the requirements in the Core 

Operating Limits Report (CORL). The COLR 

specifies the minimum measured flow value. 

Consequently, the minimum measured flow 

value will continue to be met. This proposed 

change does not alter any system or actual 

flow value. 

I&M is proposing to delete a TS provision 

that allows the unit to operate for an 

unlimited amount of time with a Safety 

Injection (SI) system cross tie valve closed, 

provided that thermal power is reduced. As 

discussed below, I&M is proposing to adopt 

a new large break loss-of-coolant accident 

(LBLOCA) analysis. The new analysis does 

not evaluate plant operation with an SI 

system cross-tie valve closed. The position of 

the SI system cross connect valve does not 

affect the likelihood of an accident. This 

proposed change will assure the plant will be 

operated within the new LBLOCA analysis. 

I&M is proposing to modify the TS such 

that it identifies the new LBLOCA analysis 

methodology rather than the analysis 

methodology being replaced. This TS change 

is administrative in that it will identify the 

new methodology following approval of the 

new methodology by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

I&M is proposing to adopt a new LBLOCA 

analysis which uses a plant-specific 

adaptation of a best-estimate methodology 

using automated statistical treatment of 

uncertainty methodology (ASTRUM). The 

analysis is based on the current plant 

configuration and the plant will be operated 

within the assumptions of the analysis. The 

analysis demonstrates that the current 

emergency core cooling system design 

performance conforms to the criteria 

contained in 10 CFR 50.46.b. An LBLOCA is 

the only accident involved in this change. No 

changes are being made to any reactor 

protection system or engineered safeguards 

features actuation system setpoints. 

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? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the TS will not 

result in the operation of any structure, 

system, or component in a new or different 

manner. Adoption of a plant-specific 

adaptation of the ASTRUM methodology will 

not create any new failure modes that could 

lead to a different kind of accident. 

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? 

It has been shown that the analytical 

technique used in the analysis realistically 

describes the expected behavior of the 

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 reactor 

system during a postulated LBLOCA. 

Uncertainties have been accounted for as 

required by 10 CFR 50.46. A sufficient 

number of loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs) 

with different break sizes, different locations, 

and other variations in properties have been 

analyzed to provide assurance that the most 

severe postulated LOCAs were analyzed. 

WCOBRA/TRAC validation with the revised 

downcomer noding has been found 

acceptable for application of the ASTRUM 

methodology, with no changes to the 

uncertainty treatment. The analysis has 

demonstrated that all acceptance criteria 

contained in 10 CFR 50.46, Paragraph b, 

continue to be satisfied. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the 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: James M. Petro, 

Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel, Indiana 

Michigan Power Company, One Cook 

Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. 

NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, 

California 

Date of amendment request: June 10, 

2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would delete those 

portions of the Technical Specifications 

(TSs) for San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 2 and 3 that are 

superseded by the new requirements 

regarding working hours for nuclear 

plant staff in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I. 

This change is consistent with U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)- 

approved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 

Technical Specification change traveler, 

TSTF–511, Revision 0, ‘‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR part 26.’’ The availability of this TS 

improvement was announced in the 

Federal Register on December 30, 2008 

(73 FR 79923), as part of the 

Consolidated Line Item Improvement 

Process (CLIIP). 

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: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Increase in the 

Probability or Consequences of an Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Removal of the Technical Specification 

requirements will be performed concurrently 

with the implementation of the 10 CFR part 

26, subpart I, requirements. The proposed 

change does not impact the physical 

configuration or function of plant structures, 

systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner 

in which SSCs are operated, maintained, 

modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue 

is not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an 

assumption in the consequence mitigation of 

any accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Create the Possibility of a New or Different 

Kind of Accident From Any Accident 

Previously Evaluated 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. 

Working hours will continue to be controlled 

in accordance with NRC requirements. The 

new rule allows for deviations from controls 

to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to 

safety or as necessary to maintain the 

security of the facility. This ensures that the 

new rule will not unnecessarily restrict 

working hours and thereby create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

plant configuration, require new plant 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
40240 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 

equipment to be installed, alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

effect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not 

Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin 

of Safety 

The proposed change removes Technical 

Specification restrictions on working hours 

for personnel who perform safety related 

functions. The Technical Specification 

restrictions are superseded by the worker 

fatigue requirements in 10 CFR part 26. The 

proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to the plant or alter the 

manner in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

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. The proposed change does 

not adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

Removal of plant-specific Technical 

Specification administrative requirements 

will not reduce a margin of safety because the 

requirements in 10 CFR part 26 are adequate 

to ensure that worker fatigue is managed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on that 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the request 

for amendments involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. 

Porter, Esquire, Southern California 

Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 

Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: May 19, 

2009. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would revise Technical Specification 

(TS) 5.5.9, ‘‘Steam Generator (SG) 

Program,’’ to exclude portions of the 

tubes within the tubesheet from 

periodic SG inspections. In addition, 

this amendment proposes to revise TS 

5.6.10, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube 

Inspection Report’’ to remove reference 

to previous interim alternate repair 

criteria and provide reporting 

requirements specific to the permanent 

alternate repair criteria. The proposed 

change defines the safety significant 

portion of the tube that must be 

inspected and repaired. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in the Federal Register: June 18, 

2009 (74 FR 28962). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

July 18, 2009 (public comments). 

August 18, 2009 (hearing requests). 

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 

Systems (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. 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Calvert County, Maryland 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 29, 2008, as supplemented by 

letters dated December 3, two letters 

dated December 29, December 30, 2008, 

February 17, February 18, March 10, 

May 7, and June 11, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: 

These amendments revise the Renewed 

Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications to reflect an 

increase in the rated thermal power 

from 2,700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 

2,737 MWt (1.38 percent increase). The 

increase is based upon increased 

feedwater flow measurement accuracy 

achieved by using high-accuracy Caldon 

CheckPlusTM Leading Edge Flow Meter 

ultrasonic flow measurement 

instrumentation. 

Date of issuance: July 22, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance. Unit No. 1 shall be 

implemented within 180 days following 

completion of the 2009 refueling outage 

and Unit No. 2 shall be implemented 

within 180 days following completion 

of the 2010 refueling outage. 

Amendment Nos.: 291 and 267. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments 

revised the License and Technical 

Specifications. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 40241 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 

65688). The letters dated December 3, 

two letters dated December 29, 

December 30, 2008, February 17, 

February 18, March 10, May 7, and June 

11, 2009, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of these amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of application for amendment: 

March 30, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

changes deleted those portions of 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 

superseded by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 26, 

subpart I, consistent with U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission-approved TS 

Task Force (TSTF) change traveler 

TSTF–511, Revision 0, ‘‘Eliminate 

Working Hour Restrictions from TS 

5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 

CFR part 26.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2009. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment No.: 213. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

21: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20743). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, 

Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 21, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 6.5.16, ‘‘Containment 

Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ to allow 

a one-time extension to the 10-year 

frequency for next containment 

integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) or 

Type A test at the Arkansas Nuclear 

One, Unit No. 2. The ILRT is required 

to be performed every 10 years. The 

amendment permitted the existing ILRT 

frequency to be extended from 10 years 

(120 months) to 135 months. 

Date of issuance: July 20, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 284. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications/license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR 

65694). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 

(Braidwood), Will County, Illinois 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 

(Byron), Ogle County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 29, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments remove time, cycle, or 

modification-related items from the 

operating licenses (OLs) and technical 

specifications (TSs) at both stations. 

Additionally, the amendments correct 

typographical errors introduced into the 

TSs at both stations in previous 

amendments. The time, cycle, or 

modification-related items have been 

implemented or superseded, are no 

longer applicable, and no longer need to 

be maintained in their associated OLs or 

TSs. 

Date of issuance: July 22, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: Braidwood Unit 1– 

160; Braidwood Unit 2–160; Byron Unit 

No. 1–165; and Byron Unit No. 2–165. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72, NPF–77, NPF–37, and NPF–66: The 

amendments revise the TSs and 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 9, 2008 (73 FR 

52417). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50– 

412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS), Beaver County, 

Pennsylvania 

Docket No. 50–346, Davis-Besse Nuclear 

Power Station, Unit No. 1 (DBNPS), 

Ottawa County, Ohio 

Docket No. 50–440, Perry Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit No. 1 (PNPP), Lake County, 

Ohio 

Date of application for amendments: 

March 25, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments delete paragraph d of TS 

5.2.2, ‘‘Unit Staff,’’ for BVPS and 

DBNPS, and paragraph e for PNPP. The 

application is consistent with NRCapproved Revision 0 to Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Improved Standard Technical 

Specification Change Traveler, TSTF– 

511, ‘‘Eliminate Working Hour 

Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 

Compliance with 10 CFR part 26.’’ The 

availability of this TS improvement was 

announced in the Federal Register (FR) 

on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923) as 

part of the Consolidated Line Item 

Improvement Process. 

Date of issuance: July 16, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented by 

September 30, 2009. 

Amendment Nos.: 284, 169, 280, 152. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

66, NPF–73, NPF–3, and NPF–58: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications/License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20747). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power Corporation, et al., 

Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 

No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus 

County, Florida 

Date of application for amendment: 

June 3, 2008, as supplemented on 

November 17, 2008, and by letters dated 

April 8 and May 22, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Crystal River 

Unit 3 (CR–3) Final Safety Analysis 

Report Sections 5.4.3, ‘‘Structural 

Design Criteria’’ and 5.4.5.3, ‘‘Missile 

Analysis,’’ to include a statement 

regarding the design of the east wall of 

the CR–3 Auxiliary Building. The 

amendment changes the methodology 

used to qualify the east wall of the 

Auxiliary Building. The current 

methodology uses the methods in 

American Concrete Institute (ACI) 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
40242 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 

Standard 318–63, ‘‘Building Code 

Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,’’ 

June 1963. The revised methodology is 

based on ACI 349–97, ‘‘Code 

Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related 

Concrete Structures,’’ as endorsed by 

NRC’s Standard Review Plan (NUREG 

0800), Revision 2—March 2007, Section 

3.8.4 ‘‘Other Seismic Category 1 

Structures.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 24, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 235. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

72: Amendment revises the Facility 

Operating License and authorizes 

revisions to the CR–3 FSAR sections 

5.4.3 and 5.4.5.3. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 23, 2009 (74 FR 29732). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

and final no significant hazards 

consideration determination of the 

amendment is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated July 24, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 

50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, 

Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: February 

18, 2009. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment eliminates Working 

Hour Restrictions from Technical 

Specification 6.2.2 to support 

compliance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 26, 

subpart I. 

Date of issuance: July 21, 2009. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented by 

October 1, 2009. 

Amendment No.: 121. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

86: The amendment revised the License 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20749). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 21, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald 

C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of application for amendments: 

March 19, 2009, as supplemented on 

April 17, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments delete those portions of the 

Technical Specifications (TS) 

superseded by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 26, 

‘‘Fitness for Duty Programs,’’ subpart I, 

‘‘Managing Fatigue.’’ The change is 

consistent with Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC)-approved Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Improved Standard TS Change Traveler, 

TSTF–511, ‘‘Eliminate Working Hour 

Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 

Compliance with 10 CFR part 26.’’ 

Revision 0. 

Date of issuance: July 24, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented by October 

1, 2009. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—310; Unit 

2—292. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

58 and DPR–74: The amendments 

revised the TSs and the Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20750). An 

April 17, 2009, supplement was issued 

to provide the State of Michigan the 

enclosure and attachments associated 

with the original March 19, 2009, 

application, as required pursuant to 10 

CFR 50.91(b). Therefore, the April 17, 

2009, supplement did not expand the 

scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration published in the Federal 

Register on May 5, 2009. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 24, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: August 

19, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements for 

mode change limitations in accordance 

with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task 

Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF–359, 

Revision 9, ‘‘Increase Flexibility in 

MODE Restraints,’’ and revised TS 

section 1.4, ‘‘Frequency,’’ in accordance 

with NRC-approved traveler TSTF–485, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Correct Example 1.4–1.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 28, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 233. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

46: Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 21, 2008 (73 FR 

62565). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine 

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2 (NMP 1 and 2), Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 11, 2009. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments delete those portions of the 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 

superseded by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 26, 

subpart I. This change is consistent with 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

approved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 

Technical Specifications Change 

Traveler TSTF–511, Revision 0, 

‘‘Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions 

from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance 

with 10 CFR part 26.’’ These changes 

were described in a Notice of 

Availability for Consolidated Line Item 

Improvement Process TSTF–511 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923). 

Date of issuance: July 27, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance to be implemented by October 

1, 2009. 

Amendment Nos.: 203 and 131. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–063 and NPF–069: The 

amendments revise the License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 21, 2009 (73 FR 18255). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: October 

31, 2008. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modifies Technical 

Specification 3.6(3), ‘‘Containment 

Recirculating Air Cooling and Filtering 

System,’’ by adding two new 

Surveillance Requirements (SRs) and 

modifying SRs 3.6(3)b, e and f. In 

addition, the amendment removed the 

license conditions related to the 

replacement and testing of containment 

air cooling and filtering (CACF) unit 

high-efficiency particulate air filters and 

surveillance testing of the CACF unit 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices 40243 

relief ports. These license conditions 

committed to by the licensee in its letter 

dated April 10, 2008, and were 

implemented via Technical 

Specification Amendment No. 255. 

Date of issuance: July 22, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 260. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15773). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated July 22, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: July 31, 

2008, as supplemented by letter dated 

May 8, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modified the transformer 

allowed outage time in Technical 

Specification (TS) Sections 2.7(2)a., 

2.7(2)b., and 2.7(2)c., and deleted the 

associated 2.7(2) special reporting 

requirements in TS 5.9.3j. 

Date of issuance: July 24, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 261. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 10, 2009 (74 FR 

6666). The supplemental letter dated 

May 8, 2009, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated July 24, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: January 

30, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment deleted paragraph e of 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.2.2, 

‘‘Unit Staff,’’ consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF–511, 

Revision 0, ‘‘Eliminate Working Hour 

Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support 

Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.’’ All 

administrative deviations from the 

model application were addressed in 

the application. The availability of the 

TS improvement was published in the 

Federal Register on December 30, 2008 

(73 FR 79923), as part of the 

consolidated line item improvement 

process. 

Date of issuance: July 24, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 262. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15775). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated July 24, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

July 30, 2008, as supplemented by letter 

dated February 6, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment: (1) Relocates Technical 

Specification (TS) 3/4.7.5, ‘‘Snubbers,’’ 

to the Technical Requirements Manual 

(TRM); (2) relocates TS 6.10.3.I, which 

specifies retention requirements for 

records of snubber service life 

monitoring, to the TRM; (3) adds new 

TS Limiting Condition for Operation 

(LCO) 3.0.8, ‘‘Inoperability of 

Snubbers;’’ and (4) modifies LCO 3.0.1 

to reference LCO 3.0.8. 

Date of issuance: July 15, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 90 

days. 

Amendment No.: 179. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

57: The amendment revised the TSs and 

the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58677). 

The letter dated February 6, 2009, 

provided clarifying information that did 

not change the initial proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination or expand the application 

beyond the scope of the original Federal 

Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 15, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), 

Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 30, 2009. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised WBN Unit 1 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.7, 

‘‘Procedures, Programs, and Manuals,’’ 

to correct a typographical error in the 

TS numbering from 5.2.7.20 to 5.7.2.20. 

Date of issuance: July 21, 2009. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 78. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

90: Amendment revised TS 5.7. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23449). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 21, 2009. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of August 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–18946 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATE: Weeks of August 10, 17, 24, 31, 

September 7, 14, 2009. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and closed. 

Week of August 10, 2009 

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 

9:30 a.m. 

Briefing on Research and Test Reactor 

Challenges (Public Meeting). 

(Contact: Duane Hardesty, 301 415– 

3724.) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of August 17, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 17, 2009. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES